We Need a States Consitutional Amendment Article V Convention ASAP

[JakeStarkey]

Not one single bone head can show how ME does not strengthen society, does not show any damage to straight marriage, but they do attack Amendment 14. Of course, they do; and when they do, you know just what they are: haters of America.

America (63%) is quite satisfied with this. The number has been growing not shrinking.

It has been demonstrated a countless number of ways, Starkey the Liar.

Just because you are too brain dead to understand it proves nothing more than that you are brain dead.

No, it has not; no, you can't; that is why you won't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is also interesting to note that Boehner has simply ignored the call for a convention of the states since April of 2014.

This will inspire many conservatives to demand action soon. For every cloud there is a silver lining.

You expect Boehner to jump on board?

You will get no help from anyone in the Federal government. I thought that is why the movement was taking place to begin with.

Bone head will never call for it......................If there are 34 states for it they may press on with it if Congress fails to do it's job under the Constitution.

Isnt it amazing that Boehner can just ignore Consitutional law like he does?

Thank RINO retards like Starkey the Liar for that.

You finally realize that John calls me every day for his marching orders? You are learning.

 

[Votto]

It is also interesting to note that Boehner has simply ignored the call for a convention of the states since April of 2014.

This will inspire many conservatives to demand action soon. For every cloud there is a silver lining.

You expect Boehner to jump on board?

You will get no help from anyone in the Federal government. I thought that is why the movement was taking place to begin with.

Bone head will never call for it......................If there are 34 states for it they may press on with it if Congress fails to do it's job under the Constitution.

Isnt it amazing that Boehner can just ignore Consitutional law like he does?

Thank RINO retards like Starkey the Liar for that.

You finally realize that John calls me every day for his marching orders? You are learning.

Any retard can see through these dolts.

 

[eagle1462010]

Not one single bone head can show how ME does not strengthen society, does not show any damage to straight marriage, but they do attack Amendment 14. Of course, they do; and when they do, you know just what they are: haters of America.

America (63%) is quite satisfied with this. The number has been growing not shrinking.

I would say this is BS by a BS poll site.............You forget that the Liberal State of California changed it's constitution and it won with the voters.........Given that it was a Liberals who's who state..........if put to the test of a ratification vote you would be very mistaken at the outcome. 38 States to ratify........after being corrected on that number..............would easily do it............

If 34 states are already for the convention, then the constitution requires it to go forward..........which would place bone head in violation of the constitution right now...........

 

[Coyote]

Just posted this in a new thread. EVERYONE needs to get behind this and the above

SNIP;





Another blistering dissent from Justice Scalia, not against same-sex marriage per se, but against the damage the Supreme Court is doing to American democracy:

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting.

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.


ALL of it here:
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/justice-scalia-the-supreme-court-threatens-american-democracy/#ixzz3eBpOMaJP

Scalia is wrong on this one. Marriage has been labeled a "fundamental right". You don't leave fundamental rights up to the whims of popular opinion.

That is your opinion and of various judges. It is not the letter of the law or the Constitution. Which is why we need an Article V Convention.

Law is not frozen in time and we absolutely don't need to go back in time and remove hard fought for rights.
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Coyote]

Correct.

Scalia is indeed wrong.

Fundamental rights are not subject to 'popular vote,' one's civil rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' and those protected liberties are immune from government attack.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, where citizens are subject solely to the rule of law.

We are no longer a Republic when the top judges are making rulings that ignore the definition of words and the exact words of law as written.

We are no longer a nation of laws (a Republic) and are now a nation of elite men's opinions (Oligarchy)

The justices recognized that the Equal Protection Clause applied to the gay marriage issue.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So where does 'the right to get married' appear in that text?

It doesn't. I does not list the individual incidents in which equal protection applies. It simply says that it applies to any person within that state's jurisdiction. That is all it needs to say.

It talks about legal PROTECTIONS, not more privileges, and besides all that there was no discrimination as any gay man could marry a woman of any he preferred just like any heterosexual man.

SCOTUS redefined what the word marriage means. This will be remedied in any of several ways, some better than others, and an Article V convention is the best left so far.

Then this ruling clearly cements those same protections since now any straight man can marry a man he prefers just like any homosexual man.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It is also interesting to note that Boehner has simply ignored the call for a convention of the states since April of 2014.

This will inspire many conservatives to demand action soon. For every cloud there is a silver lining.

The process for an Article V Convention has not been met. 34 states need to formally apply for a convention on the same specific amendment - which has not come close to occurring.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So far, the largest Article V attempt has been for an amendment banning corporate and union spending on elections.

California, Vermont, Illinois, and New Jersey have all applied for that one. Is that what you guys want?

 

[eagle1462010]

It is also interesting to note that Boehner has simply ignored the call for a convention of the states since April of 2014.

This will inspire many conservatives to demand action soon. For every cloud there is a silver lining.

The process for an Article V Convention has not been met. 34 states need to formally apply for a convention on the same specific amendment - which has not come close to occurring.

I saw 27 from the site I posted...............long ago.............so I'd like to see the other 7 formal postings.........What number do you have?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It is also interesting to note that Boehner has simply ignored the call for a convention of the states since April of 2014.

This will inspire many conservatives to demand action soon. For every cloud there is a silver lining.

The process for an Article V Convention has not been met. 34 states need to formally apply for a convention on the same specific amendment - which has not come close to occurring.

I saw 27 from the site I posted...............long ago.............so I'd like to see the other 7 formal postings.........What number do you have?

From what I've been able to find, there are 22 active applications from states, and another 12 that have been rescinded. Most of those applications are for entirely different amendments.

It's very hard to find comprehensive data on this.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Law is not frozen in time and we absolutely don't need to go back in time and remove hard fought for rights.

Rights do not originate from law... . Rights originate from God. And there is no right to deceive others and that SCOTUS decision was 100% deception; fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And not one bonehead from the far right has demonstrated how ME has harmed them specifically or our culture generally.

The First Baptist Evangelicals of America are no longer in charge. It's over, boneheads.

And Keys is just an adorable bonehead who is not an authority on God, rights, or natural law. He is just a bonehead who cites himself as an authority.

 

[eagle1462010]

BREAKING Alabama Serves Barack Obama Article 5 Document in Historic Move

Pressure is growing on both sides of the aisle for a historic Article V ‘Convention of the States’ to stop President Barack Obama from causing more irreversible political and fiscal damage to the United States of America.




While more than half the states have now filed a Convention of States application, Alabama is the fourth state to complete the application process, joining Georgia, Florida and Alaska. Alabama State Official say they “have had enough of Obama and a federal government that has become too big, too intrusive and too corrupt.”

 

[Coyote]

Law is not frozen in time and we absolutely don't need to go back in time and remove hard fought for rights.

Rights do not originate from law... . Rights originate from God. And there is no right to deceive others and that SCOTUS decision was 100% deception; fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

Since God never said anything about same sex marriage, there shouldn't be a problem.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The most popular application at the moment is for a balanced budget amendment, which seems to have about 20 or so states signed on.

 

[eagle1462010]

Balanced Budget Amendment Article V Applications in the States

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Balanced Budget Amendment Article V Applications in the States

"Active resolutions" are not the same as "passed resolutions".

 

[eagle1462010]

The most popular application at the moment is for a balanced budget amendment, which seems to have about 20 or so states signed on.

Then your 4 state post is incorrect about the biggest ever tried now isn't it..............

I'm showing 4 confirmed final registered completely, with 23 in process on the balanced budget amendment.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The most popular application at the moment is for a balanced budget amendment, which seems to have about 20 or so states signed on.

Then your 4 state post is incorrect about the biggest ever tried now isn't it..............

Yes, I was incorrect. Mea culpa. As I said, it's hard to find answers on this - there's a lot of contradictory and spun information out there.

I'm showing 4 confirmed final registered completely, with 23 in process on the balanced budget amendment.

I'm fairly certain that more than 4 have formally applied at this point - I've read something like 20 or 22.

Still short of 34, though.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Law is not frozen in time and we absolutely don't need to go back in time and remove hard fought for rights.

Rights do not originate from law... . Rights originate from God. And there is no right to deceive others and that SCOTUS decision was 100% deception; fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

Since God never said anything about same sex marriage, there shouldn't be a problem.

Not so, given that god designed humanity... and designed such with two distinct but complementing genders, each respectively designed to join with the other; two bodies joining to form one... which is what marriage is, except that it is the legal recognition of that physical bond. Thus marriage is defined by the human physiological standard.

You feel that this natural law can simply be rejected and that there will no consequences. You're simply wrong.

Removing respect for natural law merely opens the individual; and by extension, the collective... to the consequences that must come from every choice made.

Within 24 hours of the decision, there are polygamists demanding that the ruling authorizes that multiple of three or more people marry.

On this very board, we have seen individual contributors stating that they see the decision having provided for Parents to Marry their Children, Siblings to marry one another and for people who love their pets, to marry those pets... .

What's more, again on this very board, we have witnessed individuals who are unable to say that they would reject 'changes in the law' which provide for equal protection of the law for Children to legally consent to sex... .

And that's just in

THE FIRST 24 HOURS!​