Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I voted to cap SC judges at 9 but the quorum thing has me thinking. Is their a quorum now? I can see that being politically used like some states do with their legislators. It would suck if the SC started to use this as a political tool.Here is a summary of the proposed Amendments to the US Constitution pending approval at the Convention of States.
If/when 38 state legislatures approve any of the following proposed amendments they are approved, and NOT subject to review by the president, congress, nor the Supreme Court.
1) Term limits for Congress (9 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate)
2) Cap U.S. Supreme Court judges at nine & a quorum at six
3) Balanced Budget Amendment
4) Set boundaries to the Commerce Clause ( the Department of Commerce will be eliminated, states regulate commerce)
5) Enable states to overrule federal laws and regulations (a simple majority of all state legislatures (i.e. 26) can repeal any federal law)
6) Stop the federal government from seizing states' land and resources (all land and resources within a state shall be regulated by that state)
They passed most of them. If we don't balance the budget the dollar collapses. The Fitch downgrade was a final warning
News
appropriations.house.gov
Agreed. I'm not sure when the quorum thing kicks in. Only if one dies or retires maybe?I voted to cap SC judges at 9 but the quorum thing has me thinking. Is their a quorum now? I can see that being politically used like some states do with their legislators. It would suck if the SC started to use this as a political tool.
Bite me.I see someone already tagged this as Fake News ... you should be ashamed of yourself ...
HR 4355 (2021) was the military appropriations from the 117th Congress, Democrat controlled ...
No ... the Republican controlled 118th House hasn't sent any appropriations bills to the Senate ...
I can't believe you're trying to take credit for something the Democrats did ... that's lame even for Republicans ...
When you see a bidenesta calling for a convention of the states buyer beware.Proponents of a article 5 convention of states can shove it right up their ass along with a cactus....Careful what you wish for.
Our Founding Fathers did not create Article V to rein in the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. The Constitution they had just written already did that. That was the reason for drafting the Constitution in the first place.
When the people meet in convention they are under no obligation to abide by the terms of the state resolutions. That is why Article V establishes no procedures, other than to apply.
Once two-thirds apply, Congress shall call a convention, and once the convention convenes, it is under the highest sovereign authority of a free country: the people. (yeah right)
At that point the rules, procedures, and agenda are set by the convention.
Neither Congress nor the state legislatures have any authority or control over a convention once it is called to order.
The Danger of a Convention of States
This article refutes the most common claims of an intense drive to stampede the public and state legislators into calling for a dangerous second constitutionalwww.freedomfirstsociety.org
Sorry but I don't want a rouge's gallery of leftists and RINOs determining our direction....They are fucking up things royally the way it is.
Well, one possibility is openings coming up and never filled, enough to the point where some judges could finish it off by refusing to even listen to a case, let along make a decision on one. I don't even know at what point the quorum thing would kick in. Is a quorum when the case is listened to or at the point they make a decision on the case?Agreed. I'm not sure when the quorum thing kicks in. Only if one dies or retires maybe?
I can't imagine that three justices would ever be out of commission?
That term limit proposal is too weak.Here is a summary of the proposed Amendments to the US Constitution pending approval at the Convention of States.
If/when 38 state legislatures approve any of the following proposed amendments they are approved, and NOT subject to review by the president, congress, nor the Supreme Court.
1) Term limits for Congress (9 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate)
2) Cap U.S. Supreme Court judges at nine & a quorum at six
3) Balanced Budget Amendment
4) Set boundaries to the Commerce Clause ( the Department of Commerce will be eliminated, states regulate commerce)
5) Enable states to overrule federal laws and regulations (a simple majority of all state legislatures (i.e. 26) can repeal any federal law)
6) Stop the federal government from seizing states' land and resources (all land and resources within a state shall be regulated by that state)
Actually this COS has a very strict agenda.
Several states insisted on it to be sure that the 2nd Amendment couldn't be affected.
All amendments have to be approved by 3/4 of the states. There's no danger of a "runaway convention."
The state reps to the COS will debate them, and then each state legislatured will debate them.True.
Just saying there can be no pre-limits that are binding on a COS.
Which means their proposed amendment have to go out to the states forcing a debate.
WW
Any proposed amendment still has to be approved by 3/4 of the states. How is that any more dangerous than having Congress propose amendments? Congress is against it because under the COS amendments like term limits can be proposed, and they would never propose that in a million years.
The state reps to the COS will debate them, and then each state legislatured will debate them.
Florida is happy that you do not like it.1. Bad idea. Florida has term limits. It's the most screwed up state of all.
2. Bad idea. The court needs to be bigger.
3. Awful idea. Cripples the ability of the government to fix a recession, as Biden did with the Trump recession.
4. Bad idea. Allows fascist states to play dictator.
5. Same
6. Worst idea. Turns over the peoples' land to whatever political hack bribes the state government.
How about abolishing the income tax and going back to having state legislatures choose senators?Agreed again.
They could propose term limits, then it would be up to the 3/4 of the states.
They could propose restructuring the 2nd Amendment, then it would be up to 3/4 of the states.
They could propose national abortion rights up to 20 weeks, then it would be up to 3/4 of the states.
You and I are in agreement, I think.
WW
Bite me.
BILL SUMMARY: Defense Fiscal Year 2024 Appropriations Bill | United States Senate Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate Committee on Appropriationswww.appropriations.senate.gov
The following list provides information on Congressionally Directed Spending items that are included in the fiscal year 2024 Senate appropriations bills.FY 2024 Congressionally Directed Spending | United States Senate Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate Committee on Appropriationswww.appropriations.senate.gov
- Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
- Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
- Energy and Water Development
- Financial Services and General Government
- Homeland Security
- Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
- Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
- Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
- Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
How about abolishing the income tax and going back to having state legislatures choose senators?
Typically a quorum is the minimum number of members to take an official action, in this case make an official decision.Well, one possibility is openings coming up and never filled, enough to the point where some judges could finish it off by refusing to even listen to a case, let along make a decision on one. I don't even know at what point the quorum thing would kick in. Is a quorum when the case is listened to or at the point they make a decision on the case?
