Dear Friend, I'm am greatly concerned over the thoughts and actions of misguided well-intentioned Christians and pro-family groups who are campaigning for a *Federal* Constitutional amendment that will give legal protection to God's definition of marriage at the Federal level. You may be scratching your head right now, and with all of the "conservative" media coverage on this promoting the idea, it's understood why you could be surprised at my statement. Please prayerfully allow me to explain. Our Christian Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. understood that laws on morality must be kept away from "the few" and given to "the many - We the People" so that tyranny and despotism would be prevented. If our elected officials followed our Federal Constitution, Roe v Wade would never have gone to the Supreme Court because the Federal Constitution does not give any power over moral issues (like capital punishment) to the Federal level (which is why some states have capital punishment and some do not). If our elected officials in our Federal Congress followed our Federal Constitution (Article III, Section 2), they would not have allowed the U.S. Federal Supreme Court to hear the Roe v Wade case; our Federal Representatives would have said that such "moral" law is reserved Only for *State* Supreme Courts (Amendment 10 in The Federal Bill of Rights). Then, abortion would still be illegal in the states that are pro-life! Here is a snip from a short article that follows: --- The proper remedy to judicial usurpation is to employ a little-known power contained in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which allows Congress to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This power applies, by extension, to all federal courts, since the Supreme Court is the only federal court established by the Constitution and Congress established all other federal courts. This power could be used to prevent the federal courts from hearing cases from abortion to the Pledge of Allegiance. If this were done, myriad pretexts for endlessly tampering with the Constitution would be lost. --- Do you see where this "amend our Federal Constitution with moral laws" is going? If we allow our Federal Representatives to make moral law a Federal issue instead of a States issue, then our ability to keep the U.S.A. God-honoring (in our government) will diminish, thus, surely, fully removing God's hand of protection over us (see the Book of Judges for examples)! This is a fantastic example of why our Christian Founding Fathers established the U.S.A. as a Republic and Not a Democracy (this is super-easily explained in the Free 4-page 'Civics in Seconds' here: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/Civics_in_Seconds.htm ) If Californians decide that homosexual marriage or abortion is legal in their state and make it California law, ethical Californians can move to a pro-life/pro-traditional-marriage state. This could hit California hard (gone tax money, employees, etc.) and could pressure CA to change its laws, and this would help the pro-life/pro-traditional-marriage state to which the ethical Californians moved. Either way, it gives more control to We The People. We allowed our Federal Government to decide that Abortion is legal in Roe v Wade. We allowed our Federal Government to decide that prayer in school is illegal (Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212 (1963)). If we allow our Federal Government to decide that only Judeo-Christian marriage is legal, then later, guess what? Our Federal Government would be empowered to change that law so that homosexual marriage, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and other abominations are legally protected at the Federal level! Traditional marriage legislation must be passed at the State Level, at the State Level Only, and in Every State! Let us remember that the U.S. Federal Constitution was written by Christians. They knew what they were doing because they just survived tyrannical oppression and because they prayed and sought guidance from Jesus Christ in all of their meetings. We must preserve the political protections that the Founding Fathers, guided by Jesus, placed in the Federal U.S. Constitution! When we study history and the Federal U.S. Constitution, it all makes perfect sense! Please follow these ACTION ITEMS: (1) Pray for Jesus Christ to fill us with His Truth and Wisdom in all things. (2) Forward this edition of InfoQuest* to all of your like-minded friends and family ASAP. (3) Contact your State and Federal Representatives to remind them of States Rights vs. Federal Power. (4) Contact each "pro-family/conservative" group that you learn is pushing this Federal Constitutional Amendment, to educate them in the Danger of removing States' Rights. May God Save Our Country. RESOURCES: Contact Your State & Federal Reps. Here: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/government.htm#CONGRESS Read Your Federal Constitution (It's Short) Here: http://www.ushistory.org/documents/index.html Look Here to Contact/Educate Misguided Pro-Family Groups: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/links.htm Read "Civics in Seconds" + FREE PDF Download Here: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/Civics_in_Seconds.htm SAMPLE LETTER TO EDITOR/REPRESENTATIVES: To the editor: I am greatly concerned over the thoughts and actions of misguided good-intentioned pro-family citizens and groups who are campaigning for a Federal Constitutional amendment that would give Federal legal protection to God's definition of marriage, which is reserved for State law. If our elected Federal officials followed Article III, Section 2 of our Federal Constitution, they would not have allowed the U.S. Federal Supreme Court to hear the Roe v Wade case; our Federal Representatives would have said that moral law is reserved for only state legislatures and courts via the 10th Amendment. Then, abortion would still be illegal in pro-life states! If we allow our Federal Government to decide that only Judeo-Christian marriage is legal, then our Federal Government could later amend our Federal Constitution again so that homosexual marriage, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, and other abominations are legally protected at the Federal level! I implore you to contact your state/federal representatives and the misguided pro-family organizations to educate them on States' Rights now via the InfoQuest* for Truth website at http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest (click "Government"). Sincerely, ==================== ==================== Constitutional Trojan Horse by George Detweiler http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/07-29-2002/vo18no15_constitution.htm Seemingly innocuous constitutional amendments - designed to appeal to good, patriotic Americans - contain hidden dangers that would greatly harm our republic. The familiar story of the Trojan horse offers an apt metaphor for ongoing efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution. Virgil's Aeneid relates how the Greeks used the gift of a giant horse to gain access to the fortified city of Troy and conquer it from within.. Similar use is being made of seemingly innocuous proposals to amend the Constitution. Most of the proposed amendments address hot-button issues, such as term limits, flag burning, and traditional marriage. Although welcomed by well-intentioned Americans, those "gifts" could conceal a stealthy effort to destroy the Constitution from within, via a second constitutional convention. Federal Regulation of Marriage? H. J. Res. 93, the "Defense of Marriage Amendment," is propelled by public indignation against efforts in some states to recognize same-sex and group "marriages." The measure provides: "Marriage in the United States shall consist of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or [sic] the constitution of any State, nor State or [sic] federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or [sic] the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." The idea sounds great, so what's wrong with it? Simply put: This amendment would, for the first time, give the federal government jurisdiction over marriage and the home. "Family policy has historically been regarded as a Tenth Amendment issue, one that's within the purview of the states," comments Dr. Alan Carlson of the Howard Institute. "When the U.S. Constitution was written, one of the powers specifically not delegated by the states to the federal government was control of family law and governance. In contrast to most European constitutions, our foundational document makes no direct mention of children, families, parenthood, marriage, or the family's relationship to the state. This omission reflected the keen interest in the family held by local communities and an unwillingness to subject such sensitive questions to uniform, national answers." The definition of marriage as a covenant in which "a man [shall] leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife ... and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24) has been repeated in various versions for centuries in the laws and practices of countries throughout the world. That definition has formed a part of the bodies of state laws and been widely recognized in American jurisprudence. Although the language in H. J. Res. 93 reflects laudable concerns, it has no place in the U.S. Constitution and no place in federal law. Marriage should remain exclusively under state dominion, and those seeking to protect marriage should focus their efforts within that arena. Schemes and Solutions Sometimes amendments of the type described above are introduced to curb judicial abuse. Activist courts subverting the clear intent of the law have harmed both victims' rights and the traditional family. Many other examples could be cited, from the Supreme Court's infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade (abortion) decision to last month's Ninth Circuit decision to strike the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Regarding the latter, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) warned that, unless the decision is overturned, then "we'll all join together as one, I would guess, to offer a constitutional amendment to make the recitation of the pledge appropriate." It makes no sense to amend the Constitution to rectify abuse of judicial power, since the Constitution is not the problem. But there is an even greater danger than hasty or ill-considered amendments: The possibility that issues like those examined above may lead to a second constitutional convention, where social engineers and power-hungry elitists would have an opportunity to modify or even abolish our Constitution to suit their whims. But efforts to curb judicial abuses need not court such dangers. The proper remedy to judicial usurpation is to employ a little-known power contained in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which allows Congress to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This power applies, by extension, to all federal courts, since the Supreme Court is the only federal court established by the Constitution and Congress established all other federal courts. This power could be used to prevent the federal courts from hearing cases from abortion to the Pledge of Allegiance. If this were done, myriad pretexts for endlessly tampering with the Constitution would be lost. --- Mr. Detweiler is a constitutional lawyer and former assistant attorney general for the state of Idaho.