Changes

But that does not stop the powerful liberal movement that wants same-sex marriage.  Under an "evolving" theory of constitutional interpretation, liberals insist that the Constitution should "evolve" to establish a right to same-sex marriage.  The vague language in the 14th Amendment about "equal protection" should be interpreted, according to liberals who support same-sex marriage, to include equal protection for people of the same gender who seek to be married to each other.   

But that does not stop the powerful liberal movement that wants same-sex marriage.  Under an "evolving" theory of constitutional interpretation, liberals insist that the Constitution should "evolve" to establish a right to same-sex marriage.  The vague language in the 14th Amendment about "equal protection" should be interpreted, according to liberals who support same-sex marriage, to include equal protection for people of the same gender who seek to be married to each other.   

This is the biggest issue in the federal court system today.  Numerous lawsuits are proceeding through the federal district courts and U.S. Courts of Appeals in an attempt to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  Typically the lawsuits are brought by homosexual couples who say they want to be married, but that the laws in most States do not yet allow them to be married.  The couples argue that their constitutional rights are violated by not being able to get married.  They insist it violates "equal protection of the law" for a state to allow traditional marriage between a man and a woman, but deny same-sex marriage between a man and a man (or between a woman and a woman).

This is the biggest issue in the federal court system today.  Numerous lawsuits are proceeding through the federal district courts and U.S. Courts of Appeals in an attempt to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  Typically the lawsuits are brought by homosexual couples who say they want to be married, but the laws in most States do not yet allow them to be married.  The couples argue that their constitutional rights are violated by not being able to get married.  They insist it violates "equal protection of the law" for a state to allow traditional marriage between a man and a woman, but deny same-sex marriage between a man and a man (or between a woman and a woman).

The media (television, newspapers, magazines,  etc.) have increasingly sided with same-sex marriage, heaping praise on anyone who supports it while speaking badly of anyone who opposes it.  Over time, this has an effect on public opinion, which slowly shifts to the viewpoint preferred by the media.  This fickleness of public opinion is one reason the Framers opposed democracies.

The media (television, newspapers, magazines,  etc.) have increasingly sided with same-sex marriage, heaping praise on anyone who supports it while speaking badly of anyone who opposes it.  Over time, this has an effect on public opinion, which slowly shifts to the viewpoint preferred by the media.  This fickleness of public opinion is one reason the Framers opposed democracies.

In 2013, a special session of the Texas legislature passed a law prohibiting abortion by any physician who lacked admitting privileges at a hospital located within 30 miles of the abortion, so that he could help with any complications that his operation caused.  Most abortion clinics do not take care of the harm they cause to the women.  The clinics appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to block this law from going into effect, but the Supreme Court did not block it.  This law went into effect, and about half the abortion clinics in Texas then closed because they were not in compliance with it.

In 2013, a special session of the Texas legislature passed a law prohibiting abortion by any physician who lacked admitting privileges at a hospital located within 30 miles of the abortion, so that he could help with any complications that his operation caused.  Most abortion clinics do not take care of the harm they cause to the women.  The clinics appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to block this law from going into effect, but the Supreme Court did not block it.  This law went into effect, and about half the abortion clinics in Texas then closed because they were not in compliance with it.

In Missouri, there is only one abortion clinic remaining in the entire State, which is located in St. Louis, and very effective sidewalk counselors persuade women outside of the clinic, on public property, not to have an abortion.  When the abortion clinic tried to have the sidewalk counselors prosecuted, they asserted their First Amendment rights of free speech, and won.  In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court used the First Amendment to invalidate a Massachusetts law that prohibited sidewalk counseling from speaking within 35 feet of the abortion clinic or within 35 feet of women going to the clinic for an abortion.  Different States (and towns) have different laws to try to interfere with pro-life counseling of women in connection with abortion.

In Missouri, there is only one abortion clinic remaining in the entire State, which is located in St. Louis, and very effective sidewalk counselors persuade women outside of the clinic, on public property, not to have an abortion.  When the abortion clinic tried to have the sidewalk counselors prosecuted, they asserted their First Amendment rights of free speech, and won.  In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court used the First Amendment to invalidate a Massachusetts law that prohibited sidewalk counseling within 35 feet of the abortion clinic or within 35 feet of women going to the clinic for an abortion.  Different States (and towns) have different laws to try to interfere with pro-life counseling of women in connection with abortion.

In 1973, in ''Roe v Wade'', the Supreme Court was divided 7-2 in favor of abortion.  Now, in 2014, the Supreme Court is divided 4-4 on the issue, and one Justice votes sometimes with the pro-abortion side, and sometimes with the pro-life side.

In 1973, in ''Roe v Wade'', the Supreme Court was divided 7-2 in favor of abortion.  Now, in 2014, the Supreme Court is divided 4-4 on the issue, and one Justice votes sometimes with the pro-abortion side, and sometimes with the pro-life side.

Some say that is too much.  But it is just a small fraction of what was at stake.  The federal budget is $3.5 trillion (that's trillion, not billion), with a deficit of about $500 billion.  The federal debt is $18 trillion.  That is far, far more than what is spent to elect politicians to manage the debt.

Some say that is too much.  But it is just a small fraction of what was at stake.  The federal budget is $3.5 trillion (that's trillion, not billion), with a deficit of about $500 billion.  The federal debt is $18 trillion.  That is far, far more than what is spent to elect politicians to manage the debt.

The media have no limits on how much they spend in news and commentary, much of biased in the liberal direction, concerning elections.  Should there be any limits on political spending by individuals or corporations?

The media have no limits on how much they spend in news and commentary, much of it biased in the liberal direction, concerning elections.  Should there be any limits on political spending by individuals or corporations?

There are limits on how candidates raise and spend money, and corporations are prohibited from donating to federal candidates.  But in recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has expanded application of free speech rights to the context of political campaigns.  In ''McCutcheon v. FEC'' (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal law limiting how much an individual may contribute in one election cycle.  Previously each American could not donate, in one election cycle, more than an overall total of $123,200 to federal candidates, political parties and committees.  The Court held that limit to be a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, because the limit restricted the amount of "speech" by an individual in the form of contributing money to political campaigns.

There are limits on how candidates raise and spend money, and corporations are prohibited from donating to federal candidates.  But in recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has expanded application of free speech rights to the context of political campaigns.  In ''McCutcheon v. FEC'' (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal law limiting how much an individual may contribute in one election cycle.  Previously each American could not donate, in one election cycle, more than an overall total of $123,200 to federal candidates, political parties and committees.  The Court held that limit to be a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, because the limit restricted the amount of "speech" by an individual in the form of contributing money to political campaigns.