We must restore constitutional government

[WinterBorn]

And as for #6 in your list. Will this be any law or ruling? For example, will the states be able to overrule the SCOTUS ruling concerning same sex marriage?

Yes. The states will be able to overrule the Supreme Court. That's the idea. The federal government simply doesn't have jurisdiction over marriage and have no authority to push that on the states. The states want their power back.

The SCOTUS did not rule on marriage, per se. They ruled that excluding same sex couples was a violation of the 14th amendment. In other words, a constitutional right to equal treatment.

But homosexuals were never denied any right. They could vote. They could carry a firearm. They could practice their religion. Hell, they were even allowed to marry. A homosexual man could marry any woman he wanted and a homosexual woman could marry any man she wanted.

That's not what the Supreme Court did at all. What they did was force all 50 states to accept homosexual marriage and they simply do not have that power.

They forced them to remove the bans on same sex marriage. It is exactly what they are tasked with doing. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. Just like they struck down the anti-sodium laws.

No it's not. They created law from the bench (which is 100% illegal). You know it. I know it. Progressives know it. There were no "bans" on gay marriage (and even if there had been, that is for the states decide - the federal government has no jurisdiction over that).

There is federal jurisdiction to insure equality under the law. As I said, it was just like the sodomy laws being struck down.

 

[P@triot]

That's exactly what you said...

Try again.

No need. It's there for everyone to see.

Ok, what I said was "In fact, they have done that in 4 of the last 6 presidential ELECTIONS". That is certainly not say 4 of the last 6 presidents. And my statement is accurate.

Let me make it simpler.
The last 6 Presidential elections:
1) 1992 - Democrat elected
2) 1996 - Democrat elected
3) 2000 - Republican elected
4) 2004 - Republican elected
5) 2008 - Democrat elected
6) 2012 - Democrat elected

Next time read ALL the words before going off.

I didn't "go off". You're just cherry picking statistics. If you want to go that way, then conservatives have dominated the political landscape - winning 5 of the last 9 (Reagan 2x, Bush 1x, Bush 2x). You conveniently choose to stop at Clinton. How about 12 straight years of Reagan and H.W. Bush?

Because my point was a rebuttal of your claim that liberals will not come out for the Convention. Do I pointed out that they are capable of turning out to win elections, so dismissing them is ridiculous.

But at least you finally read what I actually posted, instead of what you wanted to see.

Your point doesn't hold up at all if you go back to Reagan. It only holds up when you conveniently stop where you need to stop to support your opinion.

And I'm not "dismissing" progressives. I simply recognize that they are far too lazy to achieve anything through constitutional means. They do it through illegal legislation and through the Supreme Court. So they are going to do what they are going to do anyway. The convention is not a threat to us at all from a progressive perspective. Hell, you should be far more worried about Hitlery and who she will appoint to the Supreme Court and thus backing this to limit their power.

 

[P@triot]

Yes. The states will be able to overrule the Supreme Court. That's the idea. The federal government simply doesn't have jurisdiction over marriage and have no authority to push that on the states. The states want their power back.

The SCOTUS did not rule on marriage, per se. They ruled that excluding same sex couples was a violation of the 14th amendment. In other words, a constitutional right to equal treatment.

But homosexuals were never denied any right. They could vote. They could carry a firearm. They could practice their religion. Hell, they were even allowed to marry. A homosexual man could marry any woman he wanted and a homosexual woman could marry any man she wanted.

That's not what the Supreme Court did at all. What they did was force all 50 states to accept homosexual marriage and they simply do not have that power.

They forced them to remove the bans on same sex marriage. It is exactly what they are tasked with doing. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. Just like they struck down the anti-sodium laws.

No it's not. They created law from the bench (which is 100% illegal). You know it. I know it. Progressives know it. There were no "bans" on gay marriage (and even if there had been, that is for the states decide - the federal government has no jurisdiction over that).

There is federal jurisdiction to insure equality under the law. As I said, it was just like the sodomy laws being struck down.

Yeah....and homosexuals had "equality". They were not denied anything. Including the right to marry. A homosexual man was allowed to marry any woman he wanted and vise versa. What the Supreme Court did was unconstitutionally create law from the bench and over step their authority. Marriage is not one of the federal governments 18 enumerated powers. Hell....show me where it even says that "equality under the law" is one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government. You can't. But you keep using that term. Apparently you've bought into the progressive propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

The Supreme Court's only responsibility is to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Not to create law from the bench or "interpret" what the Constitution says.

 

[regent]

And as for #6 in your list. Will this be any law or ruling? For example, will the states be able to overrule the SCOTUS ruling concerning same sex marriage?

Yes. The states will be able to overrule the Supreme Court. That's the idea. The federal government simply doesn't have jurisdiction over marriage and have no authority to push that on the states. The states want their power back.

The SCOTUS did not rule on marriage, per se. They ruled that excluding same sex couples was a violation of the 14th amendment. In other words, a constitutional right to equal treatment.

But homosexuals were never denied any right. They could vote. They could carry a firearm. They could practice their religion. Hell, they were even allowed to marry. A homosexual man could marry any woman he wanted and a homosexual woman could marry any man she wanted.

That's not what the Supreme Court did at all. What they did was force all 50 states to accept homosexual marriage and they simply do not have that power.

They forced them to remove the bans on same sex marriage. It is exactly what they are tasked with doing. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. Just like they struck down the anti-sodium laws.

No it's not. They created law from the bench (which is 100% illegal). You know it. I know it. Progressives know it. There were no "bans" on gay marriage (and even if there had been, that is for the states decide - the federal government has no jurisdiction over that).

Would all states recognize a gay marriage licence issued by another state?

 

[P@triot]

Would all states recognize a gay marriage licence issued by another state?

That would be up to each state to decide. Just like they do with conceal handgun licenses. I can't really imagine why they wouldn't but it's their choice to make.

 

[P@triot]

Now - more than ever - it is critical that we restore constitutional government. It is also critical that we continue to develop the most secure encryption possible and deploy it across any and all forms of communications (emails, texts, faxes, phone calls, keystrokes, etc.).

Here’s the Company Who Fought for Our Privacy as Yahoo Sold Us Out to the NSA

 

[regent]

Would all states recognize a gay marriage licence issued by another state?

That would be up to each state to decide. Just like they do with conceal handgun licenses. I can't really imagine why they wouldn't but it's their choice to make.

So if a couple moved to state "a" they would be living in sin and in state "b" they would be regular folks.

 

[P@triot]

Would all states recognize a gay marriage licence issued by another state?

That would be up to each state to decide. Just like they do with conceal handgun licenses. I can't really imagine why they wouldn't but it's their choice to make.

So if a couple moved to state "a" they would be living in sin and in state "b" they would be regular folks.

God forbid said couple actually takes the personal responsibility to inquire about the marriage license laws of state "a" before moving there - right? Nah...can't have that. Must have government think and act for you, uh?

Furthermore, God really doesn't care about man's law. If a couple was actually married then they would not be "living in sin" regardless of whether or not a state recognized their marriage.

 

[WinterBorn]

Would all states recognize a gay marriage licence issued by another state?

That would be up to each state to decide. Just like they do with conceal handgun licenses. I can't really imagine why they wouldn't but it's their choice to make.

So if a couple moved to state "a" they would be living in sin and in state "b" they would be regular folks.

God forbid said couple actually takes the personal responsibility to inquire about the marriage license laws of state "a" before moving there - right? Nah...can't have that. Must have government think and act for you, uh?

Furthermore, God really doesn't care about man's law. If a couple was actually married then they would not be "living in sin" regardless of whether or not a state recognized their marriage.

Personal responsibility? So the couple gets married, and then one of them gets transferred via work. They are being responsible, hard working members of our society and nation. They would have a choice of killing their career or giving up marital benefits and protections.

 

[P@triot]

Personal responsibility? So the couple gets married, and then one of them gets transferred via work. They are being responsible, hard working members of our society and nation. They would have a choice of killing their career or giving up marital benefits and protections.

Yep. That's what America is all about - choice. You nailed it. They have the choice. They also had the choice in their "career" to get it in writing before accepting a job that they could not be transferred unless they agreed to it (just like the no trade clauses that professional athletes will sometimes demand in their contracts).

Choice is a beautiful thing WinterBorn.

 

[Kosh]

If you want constitutional government then you need to remove government from a lot of things, like marriage, healthcare, welfare, food stamps, abortion, etc.

The defense of the US is constitutional, paying for the post office is constitutional, etc.

 

[P@triot]

If you want constitutional government then you need to remove government from a lot of things, like marriage, healthcare, welfare, food stamps, abortion, etc.

The defense of the US is constitutional, paying for the post office is constitutional, etc.

Bingo!

 

[WinterBorn]

Personal responsibility? So the couple gets married, and then one of them gets transferred via work. They are being responsible, hard working members of our society and nation. They would have a choice of killing their career or giving up marital benefits and protections.

Yep. That's what America is all about - choice. You nailed it. They have the choice. They also had the choice in their "career" to get it in writing before accepting a job that they could not be transferred unless they agreed to it (just like the no trade clauses that professional athletes will sometimes demand in their contracts).

Choice is a beautiful thing WinterBorn.

Choice is a wonderful thing. But then, you do not face giving up your marriage if you are transferred.

And getting it in writing does not change anything. If the company needs you somewhere, you go or you suffer the consequences.

And to lose your marital benefits because people who are not effected by your marriage don't like your marriage, is simply ignorant.

 

[P@triot]

And getting it in writing does not change anything. If the company needs you somewhere, you go or you suffer the consequences.

Oh bullshit...now you're just asking like a desperate progressive. A legal contract is legally binding. Having it in writing changes everything. They would be legally bound by it and their hands would be tied.

 

[WinterBorn]

And getting it in writing does not change anything. If the company needs you somewhere, you go or you suffer the consequences.

Oh bullshit...now you're just asking like a desperate progressive. A legal contract is legally binding. Having it in writing changes everything. They would be legally bound by it and their hands would be tied.

I did not say they would not be legally bound. But if the company needs you to transfer, and you don't, your career could be shot.

 

[WinterBorn]

There should be no need gor

If you want constitutional government then you need to remove government from a lot of things, like marriage, healthcare, welfare, food stamps, abortion, etc.

The defense of the US is constitutional, paying for the post office is constitutional, etc.

There is no need for govt involvement in marriage. Or in many other areas.

 

[P@triot]

And getting it in writing does not change anything. If the company needs you somewhere, you go or you suffer the consequences.

Oh bullshit...now you're just asking like a desperate progressive. A legal contract is legally binding. Having it in writing changes everything. They would be legally bound by it and their hands would be tied.

I did not say they would not be legally bound. But if the company needs you to transfer, and you don't, your career could be shot.

Why? If they force you, they owe you financial reparations. If they don't force you, your career is just fine.

Furthermore - who cares? If your career is sooooooo important - then make the choice to go. If your family is more important to you - then make the choice to stay. What is the problem?

 

[regent]

Personal responsibility? So the couple gets married, and then one of them gets transferred via work. They are being responsible, hard working members of our society and nation. They would have a choice of killing their career or giving up marital benefits and protections.

Yep. That's what America is all about - choice. You nailed it. They have the choice. They also had the choice in their "career" to get it in writing before accepting a job that they could not be transferred unless they agreed to it (just like the no trade clauses that professional athletes will sometimes demand in their contracts).

Choice is a beautiful thing WinterBorn.

Is that what gays were asking for: choice to marry ?

 

[P@triot]

Personal responsibility? So the couple gets married, and then one of them gets transferred via work. They are being responsible, hard working members of our society and nation. They would have a choice of killing their career or giving up marital benefits and protections.

Yep. That's what America is all about - choice. You nailed it. They have the choice. They also had the choice in their "career" to get it in writing before accepting a job that they could not be transferred unless they agreed to it (just like the no trade clauses that professional athletes will sometimes demand in their contracts).

Choice is a beautiful thing WinterBorn.

Is that what gays were asking for: choice to marry ?

They were never denied that "choice". Ever. What they were denied was government acknowledging their idea of a new form of marriage.

 

[regent]

If you want constitutional government then you need to remove government from a lot of things, like marriage, healthcare, welfare, food stamps, abortion, etc.

The defense of the US is constitutional, paying for the post office is constitutional, etc.

Bingo!

How about post roads? Veteran's benefits?