We Need a States Consitutional Amendment Article V Convention ASAP

[JimBowie1958]

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.

No, there is no requirement that the call for the convention be for the same reason. The entire text of ARticle V is here:

"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; 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; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

There is no limitation to what the convention can address in the Constitution and since it will be a superior body once convened Congress wont be able to tell them they cannot consider one thing or the other. The call is for an amendments convention by the states and the 'why' is irrelevant once the convention begins.

How do you think we got our current Constitution? When a similar convention was called to address or modify the Articles of Confederation. And look how that turned out.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.'

Bullshit, you ignoramus. Case law can be changed in a blink by a new SCOTUS ruling. That does not mean case law is part of the Constitution.

lol, libtards like Clayton almost make me feel hopeful about the future.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

;

Those polls are bullshit and when it is put to a vote gay marriage has lost in almost every vote, including California. None of this would have been able to happen were it not for Democrat and RINO appointments to the federal bench turning our judiciary into heathen slime.

 

[Shogun]

the butthurt in this thread is exactly why i logged in to USMB today.

glorious!

 

[PratchettFan]

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 was up to 32 at one point. As soon as it gets close, states withdraw. The last time it was Louisiana, Alabama and Florida that pulled out. There isn't going to be a convention because the states don't want a convention. They just want the issue.

 

[Darkwind]

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

Yes. Closely followed by single subject legislation....

 

[Darkwind]

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 was up to 32 at one point. As soon as it gets close, states withdraw. The last time it was Louisiana, Alabama and Florida that pulled out. There isn't going to be a convention because the states don't want a convention. They just want the issue.

Just means that the message to those state legislatures needs to be made clearer.

 

[PratchettFan]

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 was up to 32 at one point. As soon as it gets close, states withdraw. The last time it was Louisiana, Alabama and Florida that pulled out. There isn't going to be a convention because the states don't want a convention. They just want the issue.

Just means that the message to those state legislatures needs to be made clearer.

No, it means there isn't going to be a convention. The state politicians want to be able to say they are fighting for you. They don't want to have to say they failed, and fail is what will happen. They know that. There is not going to be a 75% approval on positions of shrinking minorities.

 

[Darkwind]

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 was up to 32 at one point. As soon as it gets close, states withdraw. The last time it was Louisiana, Alabama and Florida that pulled out. There isn't going to be a convention because the states don't want a convention. They just want the issue.

Just means that the message to those state legislatures needs to be made clearer.

No, it means there isn't going to be a convention. The state politicians want to be able to say they are fighting for you. They don't want to have to say they failed, and fail is what will happen. They know that. There is not going to be a 75% approval on positions of shrinking minorities.

Does your crystal ball sparkle too?

I am under no illusion that the majority of politicians are working on our behalf (which is why I answered the way I did). But it is immaterial what they are working for if they go against the will of their constituents. When enough people want the convention, and their representative won't do as they ask, then they will be replaced.

That is where the grass roots activities comes into play.

Its time to stop arguing with other people and start giving our employees an understanding of what we want. In no uncertain terms.

 

[imawhosure]

Methinks you are all wrong.

With repubs in control of most of the states, (not the population centers, but clearly 2/3rds) all that needs be done is ask the question of your state legislators. Do/will you support an article 5 convention.

Do I think they will get everything through to the tune of 3/4 of the states? No way. But do not think for an instant that their are not democrats, and certainly independents in blue states that would vote for logical changes as far as taking away power from Washington? Absolutely!

We must all remember as Americans...........that if someone gets the White House that is far right wing, the 1st people screaming for an article 5 will be liberals if the President follows Obamas lead.

In all honesty, an article 5 convention should NOT be used to control those on the right, or the left. What it should be used for, is to control WASHINGTON DC!

 

[PratchettFan]

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 was up to 32 at one point. As soon as it gets close, states withdraw. The last time it was Louisiana, Alabama and Florida that pulled out. There isn't going to be a convention because the states don't want a convention. They just want the issue.

Just means that the message to those state legislatures needs to be made clearer.

No, it means there isn't going to be a convention. The state politicians want to be able to say they are fighting for you. They don't want to have to say they failed, and fail is what will happen. They know that. There is not going to be a 75% approval on positions of shrinking minorities.

Does your crystal ball sparkle too?

I am under no illusion that the majority of politicians are working on our behalf (which is why I answered the way I did). But it is immaterial what they are working for if they go against the will of their constituents. When enough people want the convention, and their representative won't do as they ask, then they will be replaced.

That is where the grass roots activities comes into play.

Its time to stop arguing with other people and start giving our employees an understanding of what we want. In no uncertain terms.

The mistake you are making is thinking that because you want it, then most people want it. This is just not true.

 

[PratchettFan]

Methinks you are all wrong.

With repubs in control of most of the states, (not the population centers, but clearly 2/3rds) all that needs be done is ask the question of your state legislators. Do/will you support an article 5 convention.

Do I think they will get everything through to the tune of 3/4 of the states? No way. But do not think for an instant that their are not democrats, and certainly independents in blue states that would vote for logical changes as far as taking away power from Washington? Absolutely!

We must all remember as Americans...........that if someone gets the White House that is far right wing, the 1st people screaming for an article 5 will be liberals if the President follows Obamas lead.

In all honesty, an article 5 convention should NOT be used to control those on the right, or the left. What it should be used for, is to control WASHINGTON DC!

Not going to happen.

 

[imawhosure]

Methinks you are all wrong.

With repubs in control of most of the states, (not the population centers, but clearly 2/3rds) all that needs be done is ask the question of your state legislators. Do/will you support an article 5 convention.

Do I think they will get everything through to the tune of 3/4 of the states? No way. But do not think for an instant that their are not democrats, and certainly independents in blue states that would vote for logical changes as far as taking away power from Washington? Absolutely!

We must all remember as Americans...........that if someone gets the White House that is far right wing, the 1st people screaming for an article 5 will be liberals if the President follows Obamas lead.

In all honesty, an article 5 convention should NOT be used to control those on the right, or the left. What it should be used for, is to control WASHINGTON DC!

Not going to happen.

You may be correct, but I would not be so confident if I was you. It is like the tax bill to build something in your area that the left likes to put in. Every year they put it in, and it is defeated. Then one year it passes, and that is all you need.

 

[dcraelin]

A professor Robert Natelson has done extensive research on Constitutional conventions and says they may be limited.

Judicial Reform is an area that might get the required states to support now that the SC has struck down so many laws that the states supported.

 

[imawhosure]

The reason an article 5 convention would work, is because if a conservative (not a rino) gets elected in 2016, he will dismantle a lot of liberal policy. Blue states will not like this, so to get out from under the thumb of a conservative President, they will horse trade to get their states rights back; which will be fine with all of the red states.

To be painfully honest, as long as there is a 50-50 possibility of the Whitehouse changing hands between the partys, it is a good deal for all involved. Nobody that I know of wants to leave America, but they will pick up and move to a red/blue state, if they like the way it works there better. And besides, aren't states just mini laboratorys? From both sides of the aisle, we can learn what works and what does not. Do we not want what is best for ourselves, children, and grandchildren?

Being told what to do in almost every facet of your life from a city far, far, away from you, has no logic. They have no idea how your area works, or what it wants. There are about 600 people between congress, and the administration. Are we to believe they know what is best for a school in Arkansas because they are so smart? A business in New York? A damn in California?

This is one of our biggest problems. Different areas need different things and have different ideas. The people in Washington do not have the scope, nor the capacity to make good decisions for most of us. To believe that they do means you have no sense of math. 600 peoples brain power, as opposed to 300,000,000. To pick the 600, even if they are Einsteins (which we all know they are not) does not compute!

You want an article 5 convention and return the massive power to the states which by our constitution they are supposed to have? Elect a conservative President, and hold the congress. The blue states will jump on board yesterday. They shrug now because they got their guy in there who ignores the separation of powers. Put a conservative in there who does the same thing because he can claim Obama did it, and watch how fast blue states change their tune.

But here is the difference............we will STILL want an article 5 even if our guy is in charge. Why? Because Washington has no business telling anybody, liberal or conservative in any state, when to poop, how high, or what color!

 

[JimBowie1958]

A professor Robert Natelson has done extensive research on Constitutional conventions and says they may be limited.

Judicial Reform is an area that might get the required states to support now that the SC has struck down so many laws that the states supported.

But at the end of the day, the proff has no vote and his opinion is no m ore authoritative than Robert Borks.

 

[dcraelin]

A professor Robert Natelson has done extensive research on Constitutional conventions and says they may be limited.

Judicial Reform is an area that might get the required states to support now that the SC has struck down so many laws that the states supported.

But at the end of the day, the proff has no vote and his opinion is no m ore authoritative than Robert Borks.

I believe I just read a reference to him in the majority opinion the Supreme court just gave in Arizona v Arizona

 

[JimBowie1958]

A professor Robert Natelson has done extensive research on Constitutional conventions and says they may be limited.

Judicial Reform is an area that might get the required states to support now that the SC has struck down so many laws that the states supported.

But at the end of the day, the proff has no vote and his opinion is no m ore authoritative than Robert Borks.

I believe I just read a reference to him in the majority opinion the Supreme court just gave in Arizona v Arizona

Some phrases he used was borrowed by a court justice. That hardly makes him an authority. Only the Constitution can do that,. You do understand that, right?

 

[dcraelin]

A professor Robert Natelson has done extensive research on Constitutional conventions and says they may be limited.

Judicial Reform is an area that might get the required states to support now that the SC has struck down so many laws that the states supported.

But at the end of the day, the proff has no vote and his opinion is no m ore authoritative than Robert Borks.

I believe I just read a reference to him in the majority opinion the Supreme court just gave in Arizona v Arizona

Some phrases he used was borrowed by a court justice. That hardly makes him an authority. Only the Constitution can do that,. You do understand that, right?

only the Constitution can do what? make him an authority?.....no his extensive study I think has done that. If I remember right the guy knows Latin fluently and has read many of the things the founding generation read.

Also as I remember he says when the state legislatures ask for a convention they can limit their representatives to the subject matter they instruct them to.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A professor Robert Natelson has done extensive research on Constitutional conventions and says they may be limited.

Judicial Reform is an area that might get the required states to support now that the SC has struck down so many laws that the states supported.

But at the end of the day, the proff has no vote and his opinion is no m ore authoritative than Robert Borks.

I believe I just read a reference to him in the majority opinion the Supreme court just gave in Arizona v Arizona

Some phrases he used was borrowed by a court justice. That hardly makes him an authority. Only the Constitution can do that,. You do understand that, right?

only the Constitution can do what? make him an authority?.....no his extensive study I think has done that. If I remember right the guy knows Latin fluently and has read many of the things the founding generation read.

Also as I remember he says when the state legislatures ask for a convention they can limit their representatives to the subject matter they instruct them to.

None of that gives the dude constitutional authority for any function within our government.