RE: RE: Double standards?

Well first, you won't see me write in favor of the so-called marriage amendment. I don't favor populist tinkering with the Constitution and it, like prohibition before it is an illustration of what is wrong with the thinking of our legislative system (and in the thinking of the people). I personally (as I have posted here before) believe the government should be out of the marriage business altogether. However, that being said, should the States wish to be in that business, regulation of it is in their purview.

The purpose of the US Constitution is to enumerate and, therefore, limit the powers of the federal, and to a far lesser extent, state governments. The purpose of the US Constitution is not to regulate individual behavior or to codify current political and social trends. I blame (you guessed it) our government-run schools for the state of general ignorance of these facts. Our members of Congress go to Washington and swear an oath to defend a document (and what it represents) of which they only have a vague understanding. I daresay that 80% of the business the US Congress takes up every day is flatly unconstitutional. Read Representative Ron Paul of Texas for more details on that.

"I guess both parties are fine with manipulating the constitution when it serves their purposes."

You can say that again. Jefferson (and others) wanted to restrict the workings of political parties within the processes of government. I think Jefferson even suggested banning them outright. Not a bad idea.

"Finally, what wrong with manipulating the Constitution if it creates policy that the majority of Americans want?"

First, as I said above, the Constitution is an enumeration of powers. It is not a policy document. It is up to Congress to create policy within the constraints of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. If the majority of Americans want a policy, they have the opportunity to express that through their representatives to Congress. If Americans are not satisfied with that system, they need to call a Constitutional Convention and rework the rules. Second, there is a process for amending the Constitution, so if by manipulation you mean the outrages committed by the Supreme Court, then I refer you to my comments above. Also read various writings by Jefferson through Andrew Jackson on the powers of the Supreme Court. It is the duty of our representatives to propose changes to the Constitution in keeping with its original intent. If it is the desire of Americans to leave that intent, once again, they can call for a Constitutional Convention and we can start over. Those are the rules of the system under which we are supposed to be living. The left has adopted a strategy of "might makes right" and used the oligarchy of the courts to impress the will of the few on us. Unfortunately, our Congress is populated by cowards. All it takes is a simple vote of the Congress to limit the court's jurisdiction and all the discussion is over. Our courts are populated by cowards as well, who run in fear of stare decisis.

I see a couple of constitutional steps that should be taken to restore something of the balance we enjoyed for about the first one hundred years of this country's life. First, we need to repeal the fourteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth amendments. Second we need to amend the Constitution to expressly forbid Congress from enacting any laws establishing redistributionism or entitlement. We also need an amendment expressly forbidding the Supreme Court from legislating from the bench. We would see a very different country, a much happier one, in just a generation if these changes were made.