Announcing Constitutionalists For Gays & Immigrants

(We’re promoting, but this post could use some more information. Is this a new political party? – promoted by Colorado Pols)

(CPols – can ya give me a little front page love on this? It would be MUCH appreciated)

Friends – please check out my new political dedication –

Constitutionalists For Gays & Immigrants

We believe that the Founding Fathers would support Gay Marriage and favor a reasonable pathway towards citizenship for illegal immigrants and we are providing the legal analysis for why (with disclaimers that all should read).

Please refer activists to this site, hopefully for the sake of strengthening everyone’s argument!

And in the wake of the DREAM Act, please show your support by clicking LIKE on our FaceBook page, so we can pump our membership.

Website link –


FACEBOOK (please LIKE this one) –…



37 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. nancycronk says:

    Democrats love the constitution!

  2. This is NOT a new political Party

    Just a resource, for activists, to gather analysis and reasoning

    Gay Marriage and pathways of citizenship for immigrants are unlikely to pass, unless we argue on the basis of Constitutional theory, not emotion

    Party-wise, I remain a proud Democrat

    • ProgressiveCowgirl says:

      I will admit to having suspected you’d eventually join us, following a pattern of perpetual mistreatment by the Republican party despite loyal and generous efforts to support Republican candidates. Someday they may learn that bigoted campaign rhetoric drives away people who share their fiscal values.

      Welcome, and please bring your friends along, too! I bet there are plenty of social progressives lurking in the rear seats with disgusted expressions at Republican committee meetings, no? Real Conservatives have too much fiscal discipline to let a little biblical literalism stand between business and the revenues brought in by gay weddings, or to turn away a skilled capitalist who wants to work and pay taxes just because he comes from another country.

      Good luck with this campaign and its laudable goals.

      (I will say, however, you desperately need a better web designer. There’s got to be one lurking around here who supports your cause.)

      • I have many Republican friends who are saying “yeah, you were a liberal all along” – lol

        I’m very happy with the design – simple and to the point – we’re just putting text out there

        Of special note – my sister drew the logo

        • ProgressiveCowgirl says:

          In Chrome, though, it shows up left-justified in the top banner and the background version of it doesn’t show at all. I wonder if my browser just isn’t rendering the page as intended.  

  3. sxp151 says:

    Some of us thought blogwhoring was discouraged even in a non-promoted diary.

  4. LemonLyman says:

    You’re awesome.  Thanks for doing this and putting your passion and resources toward something so valuable.  Welcome to the (lil) tent, my friend.  

  5. JO says:

    Obviate the need to ask by shouting the answer from the roofblogtops 24×7. Is sexual orientation really a basis for a political movement? How on earth does it tie into immigration reform, which is pretty clearly an economic issue, even if some unenlightened ignoramus would distort it by passing it through the lens of racism.

    Ali’s idea is awesome all right, but not exactly in the way La Cronk meant it.

  6. Canines says:

    (Yes, that’s his real voice, not a recording.)

  7. ardy39 says:

    Something to think about on the 219th anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

    Are some things the Founding Fathers (hallowed by thy names) wrote more sacred than other things they wrote?

    For example, Article 5?

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress …

    The document continues with some stipulations that certain types of changes to the Constitution were not acceptable until 20 years had passed.

    In other words, The Founding Fathers (blessed be thy names) suggested their collective “original intents” should be adhered to for, at best, 20 years.

    Here’s what I had with my morning constitutional today:

    Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Let us, as our sister States have done, avail ourselves of our reason and experience, to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced, although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils. . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before.

    From my man, TommyJ (blessed is the fruit of thy quill) in a letter to SammyK, back in 1816.

    Welcome to the party that wants to move forward, Ali.

    • JO says:

      I was under the impression that the “no change for 20 years” clause applied to one, and only one, type of change:

      Not for 20 years could Congress interfere with the slave trade.

      Any other “no changes” that you can name?

      Of course, when the time came–more like 70 years later, not 20–the Constitution proved no match for devotion to Slavery, or even the hint that a sorta-maybe-pro-abolitionist President was in office.

      When people start leaning on the Constitution, a document that made sure to protect one and only one institution–slavery–that to me is a sure sign of just how much trouble this country is in!

      • ardy39 says:

        But it appears you have forgotten that on January 1, 1808, the first day allowed by the Constitution, Congress did prohibit the international slave trade (although, as your correctly point out, they did little about actual slavery in the US).

        As for other “certain types of changes” I am referring, of course, to the 4th clause in the 9th Section of the 1st Article.

        More from Article 5

        … Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.

        • JO says:

          Section 9 – Limits on Congress

          The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

          (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

          The first clause very specifically referred to the slave trade. The fourth clause meant to insure that in case of any tax based on population, slaves would count as (only) six-tenths of a person as they did for determining representation in the House.

          Both sections, plus the structure of the Senate, show just how central slavery was to the Holy Writ of the Land of the Free as written by the Founding Fathers! Enough already with this beatification of Madison or any others who contributed to the document and it’s (temporarily) immutable clauses.

          [Since we seemed to be talking about the Constitution, acts passed (with however little impact on the institution of slavery) in 1808 didn’t seem relevant, no.]

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.