We Need a States Consitutional Amendment Article V Convention ASAP

[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..............

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.

The sites I read earlier in the thread suggested the same numbers I just posted.......showing 27 on board with only 4 completed to final application.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

According to wikipedia, there are 22 states with active applications for balanced budget amendments. Of those, there are a few differently worded amendments, with the most popularly worded one having 13 states behind it, and the next most popular having 6.

Additionally, 11 states have previously applied for a balanced budget amendment and later rescinded it.

Keep in mind, there are no citations on the wikipedia page for any of this.

List of state applications for an Article V Convention - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[eagle1462010]

http://nebula.wsimg.com/ca4282cedfc...EF5BCFD5720FCE35C&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

11 States have rescinded their order.
23 with active applications that have not been rescinded

Shows the actual legislation via the states at this site.

 

[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.

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.

Not really. Marriage, historically is a political bond - tying two families and their assets together in a legal arrangement. That's it. The definition of "marriage" has altered over the years. We no longer even practice (at least not legally) the biblical idea of marriage which was polygamy and forced marriages. What you are saying is - even though marriage has changed throughout history - we won't allow it to change any more.

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

"natural law" is biology. Marriage is a political-social human construct.

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

True -every choice has consequences. Now same-sex marriages will face the same divorce and remarriage risks as any other.

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

Why would that bother you? It is, after all, the Biblical marriage.

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... .

There are some big difference here - the starting point having to do with "consenting adults".

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!​

Link?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not really. Marriage, historically is a political bond - tying two families and their assets together in a legal arrangement. That's it.

Hmm... Now in these politically bonding Marriages... One Man was Joined with One Woman.

So, thank you for the historical footnote... but Marriage was then, as Marriage is Now, and what Marriage will always BE, because Marriage > IS < The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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!​

Link?

OH! Ya want a link proving that?

GREAT!

Coyote, The APA has over the last couple of decade, taken the position that 'some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult'.

Now of course, THE LAW prevents Adult Homosexuals to pursue children for sexual gratification... and we have seen in many circles, for Children to be freed from parental bondage. Hillary Clinton being chief among them...

Where, in here book: "Children Under the Law" Hillary Clinton wrote that children should no longer be considered legally incompetent.


Now part and parcel of being legally competent, is the means to consent to sexual relationships.

Let me ask ya... If Hillary is elected President, and from the power of that office she were able to get legislation passed which remove legal incompetence from children, enabling children to consent to sexual relationships, based upon the APA having determined that 'some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult'.

Would you agree or disagree with Homosexuals legally pursuing Children for sexual gratification?

Now... if ya need a link to where NOT just a contributor on this board refuses to stand against pedophilia, you should highlight your browser and copy this exchange, as to this point, you... a MODERATOR on this site has yet to take a stand against providing equal protection under the law for Children and those who 'identify' as those who desire sexual gratification with children.

OR... you could reject legal protections for the rights of children and state your opposition to providing equal protection under the law for those who simply desire to provide caring, loving relationship with a child.

Be sure to let the Reader know what ya decide.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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)

Nonsense.

Yesterday's ruling was a reaffirmation of our republican form of government: the people subject solely to the rule of law, not the capricious whims of 'majority rule.'

Our civil rights are fundamental and inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man – including state governments, who violated the 14th Amendment by seeking to deny gay Americans the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

The residents of the states who enacted measures hostile to gay Americans had no authority to do to, citizens do not forfeit their fundamental rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence, and when the people err and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, it is the role of the Supreme Court to invalidate those measures in accordance with the rule of law:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. US Constitution, Article VI

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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 can be found here in the Constitution:

Zablockiv. Redhail (1978)

And here:

Turner v. Safley (1987)

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and Articles III and VI of the Constitution; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nonsense.

Oh now THAT is brilliant.

The Republic is comprised of three separate but equal branches of government.

The Judiciary does not divine law, which is that they did in the SCOTUScare case and in the case wherein they Federally Licensed Degeneracy, over the laws of nature and the principles that define America.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

{The US Constitution} can be found here in the Constitution:

Zablockiv. Redhail (1978)

And here:

Turner v. Safley (1987)

ROFLMNAO!

Good LORD!

Does anyone need anything else?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not really. Marriage, historically is a political bond - tying two families and their assets together in a legal arrangement. That's it.

Hmm... Now in these politically bonding Marriages... One Man was Joined with One Woman.

So, thank you for the historical footnote... but Marriage was then, as
Marriage is Now, and what Marriage will always BE, because Marriage > IS < The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

In your personal, subjective, and irrelevant opinion, not as a fact of law. See Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

In your personal, subjective,...

Natural Law defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Natural Law is objective law, which stands as the foundation to ALL valid law. Any law which opposes natural law is invalid law, because to oppose natural law, such would need to be SUBJECTIVE and justice can never be served by subjective law.

You see Scamp, Rights do not come from Law... they do not come from The Federal Executive, the Federal Legislature or the Federal Judiciary... Rights comes exclusively from God.

What the SCOTUS tried to do is to GIVE rights, which it lacks the power to do, and it is in that, that we can know to an absolute certainty that the decision is deceptive... thus a vile manifestation of Evil.

 

[kiwiman127]

A list of conservative leaders who have called for a convention of states for adopting amendments to the Constitution

Endorsements - Convention of States

Sean Hannity and Mark Levin are not bellwethers of American public opinion.

According to you; pardon me if I think you are spewing shit.

North Dakota Vote Puts the U.S. One Step Closer to Convention of States TheBlaze.com

North Dakota this week became the 27th state to call for a meeting of states that would propose an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced federal budget.

It is looking like this weeks SCOTUS rulings have broken the proverbial camel's back and we will get our convention.

"It is looking like this weeks SCOTUS rulings have broken the proverbial camel's back and we will get our convention"- Jim Bowie

Considering, a majority of Americans support gay marriages, I think you are hallucinating. The Supreme's decision only threw a panic in a minority of Americans. You folks in a panic, represent a small portion of the US population.

 

[rightwinger]

Would Republicans support a balanced budget amendment if it mandated tax increases to balance the budget?

 

[eagle1462010]

Would Republicans support a balanced budget amendment if it mandated tax increases to balance the budget?

Yes.........and only with cuts..................

But I would remind you that the Federal Budget in this country is larger than the GDP of any other nation on earth............aka we have a spending problem...............................You don't get the tax increases without spending cuts.............and not just military......across the board.

 

[EverCurious]

If they were reasonable and fair (not just 99% vs 1% type "fair" but actually fair) I would. I'd prefer to make our spending match our income, like everyone else has to; some debt is alright, but there's a point at which we become "buried in debt" and cannot sustain it.

My state was the second state to sign on for; "the balanced budget amendment would limit federal spending to revenues except under a constitutionally imposed debt limit. The debt limit would not be decided by lawmakers in Washington alone, but could only be increased if a majority of state legislatures approved.

Additionally, any new taxes increases—whether they be income or sales taxes—would need two-thirds approval of both houses of Congress with a few exceptions."

 

[rightwinger]

Would Republicans support a balanced budget amendment if it mandated tax increases to balance the budget?

Yes.........and only with cuts..................

But I would remind you that the Federal Budget in this country is larger than the GDP of any other nation on earth............aka we have a spending problem...............................You don't get the tax increases without spending cuts.............and not just military......across the board.

I would agree

The sacrifice must be distributed across the board

 

[Coyote]

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!​

Link?

OH! Ya want a link proving that?

GREAT!

Coyote, The APA has over the last couple of decade, taken the position that 'some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult'.

Please provide a link to that please.

Now of course, THE LAW prevents Adult Homosexuals to pursue children for sexual gratification... and we have seen in many circles, for Children to be freed from parental bondage. Hillary Clinton being chief among them...

Where, in here book: "Children Under the Law" Hillary Clinton wrote that children should no longer be considered legally incompetent.


Now part and parcel of being legally competent, is the means to consent to sexual relationships.

Please provide a link or some source that this was referencing sexual relationships.

Let me ask ya... If Hillary is elected President, and from the power of that office she were able to get legislation passed which remove legal incompetence from children, enabling children to consent to sexual relationships, based upon the APA having determined that 'some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult'.

I'm waiting for evidence that there is any validity to this claim.

Would you agree or disagree with Homosexuals legally pursuing Children for sexual gratification?

Please provide evidence to support this (I assume you aren't simply referring to some lunatic fringe).

Now... if ya need a link to where NOT just a contributor on this board refuses to stand against pedophilia, you should highlight your browser and copy this exchange, as to this point, you... a MODERATOR on this site has yet to take a stand against providing equal protection under the law for Children and those who 'identify' as those who desire sexual gratification with children.

OR... you could reject legal protections for the rights of children and state your opposition to providing equal protection under the law for those who simply desire to provide caring, loving relationship with a child.

Be sure to let the Reader know what ya decide.

Dude. You make crazy claims. It's your job - not mine, to support them otherwise I'm forced to conclude that you are pulling them, like a massive tapeworm, from your ass

 

[Coyote]

Not really. Marriage, historically is a political bond - tying two families and their assets together in a legal arrangement. That's it.

Hmm... Now in these politically bonding Marriages... One Man was Joined with One Woman.

So, thank you for the historical footnote... but Marriage was then, as Marriage is Now, and what Marriage will always BE, because Marriage > IS < The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

According to what?

 

[Coyote]

In your personal, subjective,...

Natural Law defines Marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Natural Law is objective law, which stands as the foundation to ALL valid law. Any law which opposes natural law is invalid law, because to oppose natural law, such would need to be SUBJECTIVE and justice can never be served by subjective law.

You see Scamp, Rights do not come from Law... they do not come from The Federal Executive, the Federal Legislature or the Federal Judiciary... Rights comes exclusively from God.

What the SCOTUS tried to do is to GIVE rights, which it lacks the power to do, and it is in that, that we can know to an absolute certainty that the decision is deceptive... thus a vile manifestation of Evil.

Natural law means that the following strategies are paramount:
males mate with as many females as possible
females attempt to keep one male bonded to her

Natural law has nothing to do with marriage.