We Need a States Consitutional Amendment Article V Convention ASAP

[PredFan]

Todays SCOTUS ruling is merely the latest in a long series of outrages.

We have had the SCOTUS not only redefine what marriage is, all by their lonesome and in complete disregard for the literal reading of the Constitution's 10th Amendment, but also we have seen bad rulings on law and bad law that need to be reversed and only an Article V Convention will be able to go over the heads of the SCOTUS and redress these acts of insanity, perversion and degeneration.

1. We need a Balanced Budget Amendment. Just about every state has one and the federal governments $17 TRILLION deficit proves it is unable to restrain itself from spending at all.

2. We need term limits. We need to get rid of a professional political class and return the federal government back tot he control of the people and out of the control of professional pols and lawyers.

3. We need to purge for-profit corporate money from our system and break the corporate oligarchies power over the federal government and our nation.

4. We need a pro-life amendment. We need to stop the travesty and evil of the murder of unborn babies.

5. We need to pass an amendment that will give reaffirmation in plain modern language that the 2nd Amendment and gun rights are not to be infringed in anyway for law abiding people.

6. We need to protect private property from government seizure without a conviction in trial first.

7. We need an amendment to clearly state that the government cannot stop and search a person without due cause.

8. We need to extend the protections of old fashioned criminal due process to regulatory law as well. Government bureaucracies can fine, imprison and confiscate the belongings of American citizens without any of the Bill of Rights protections. This must be fixed to protect our freedoms.

9. We need an amendment to limit the breadth and scope of presidential Executive Orders.

10. We need to clarify that the First Amendment protects the free speech rights of government employees and officials and such activity does not constitute a violation of the separation clause, in fact it is the primary purpose of the 1st Amendment. Spell it out clearly and roll back 90% of libtard excesses.

11. Reform the tax code and remove it from the ability of Congress to manipulate it. Put in place a flat tax of 15% for every dollar earned over the poverty line. Abolish all corporate tax deductions except for the deduction of all American salaries paid out.

12. mandate that no laws can exempt the federal government at any level, branch or twig of government to include the courts, Congress and executive staff.

13. We need an amendment that specifies that no treaty we sign can ever be interpreted or conveyed to mean that the sovereignty of the USA is in any way compromised or subordinate to any international organization of any kind like the Vatican or the UN. Fast tracking legislation needs to have restrictions so that the full Senate gets an up or down vote on every treaty, and prior to that vote the full text of the treaty must be made open to the public for 10ays.


We have been sitting on our asses and letting the chattering classes steal our freedoms and rights mostly to benefit international corporations and Wall Street banks. If we do not take action soon we will lose the freedom our prior generations of heroic American citizens soldiers passed down to us.

Let us make good on our loyalty oaths to the US flag and the Republic by putting these bastards back in the place - the bottom of the political order.

I don't agree with every one of your points, but yeah, we do need a constitutional convention.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

Maybe.............just maybe...........

 

[WinterBorn]

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 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.

 

[Votto]

I agree on all but one point.

Abortion should be up to the states.

Insipid liberals should not be restrained from keeping their genetic garbage out of the genepool.

I'm not joking either. Someone who would kill their baby out of convenience clearly has something wrong with them. They should not be reproducing EVER.

Liberals are dangerously stupid people, they're a liability to mankind. They have proven either Natural Selection doesn't always work, or that we have way too many safety standards. Next time you pick up a jar of fishbait and see the words :

NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

You know it's because some obots thought it was caviar, got sick, and sued the company.

They don't need to reproduce. All they have to do is have control of the media and education to shape the perspectives of your own kids.

Progs are a virus

 

[rightwinger]

We need a convention to:

1 Put gays back in the closet
2 Put God in school
3. Declare that global warming is a myth
4. End worker rights
5. End all environmental protections
6. Stop Sharia law

Did I miss any?

 

[eagle1462010]

We need a convention to:

1 Put gays back in the closet
2 Put God in school
3. Declare that global warming is a myth
4. End worker rights
5. End all environmental protections
6. Stop Sharia law

Did I miss any?

Not one hit the mark.........

Balanced Budget.
Term Limits.
Set limits on gov't.
No more laws created via the executive by proxy. EPA, FDA...........not without consent.

 

[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 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.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

They merely expanded the definition. And without effecting straight marriage at all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

The count was already at 34 states as of April last year, calling for a convention, which is enough for an Article V convention. This week simply will intensify the demand for it.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

The count was already at 34 states as of April last year, calling for a convention, which is enough for an Article V convention. This week simply will intensify the demand for it.

I didn't think the official letters were sent already to Congress and Executive yet.

Congress is required to call it..............they will not do so............the states will have to start it themselves......................The status Quo will never go along.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

They merely expanded the definition. And without effecting straight marriage at all.

Lol, that is like saying that legally changing Pi to be 3.0 doesn't change anything as it doesnt affect those who think it is otherwise.

The word has been redefined and that is not the Constitutional role for judges. This abuse of judicial power has gone on for a long time. It is past time to put that genie back into the bottle.

 

[Votto]

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.

They merely expanded the definition. And without effecting straight marriage at all.

Why do they even bother defining marriage?

What the hell do I care what Justice Roberts or Obama or Harry Reid thinks about what is marriage?

It brings to mind at my work place, they changed the next of kin policy for family leave. It used to be siblings were considered family, but now that they added the domestic partner, they dropped siblings. These jack asses are not telling me who my family should and should not be.

 

[Votto]

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.

They merely expanded the definition. And without effecting straight marriage at all.

Lol, that is like saying that legally changing Pi to be 3.0 doesn't change anything as it doesnt affect those who think it is otherwise.

The word has been redefined and that is not the Constitutional role for judges. This abuse of judicial power has gone on for a long time. It is past time to put that genie back into the bottle.

Judicial abuse? Everyone knows that only angelic enlightened righteous men and women are chosen for SCOTUS. They can do no wrong. What they say is final.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

They merely expanded the definition. And without effecting straight marriage at all.

Lol, that is like saying that legally changing Pi to be 3.0 doesn't change anything as it doesnt affect those who think it is otherwise.

The word has been redefined and that is not the Constitutional role for judges. This abuse of judicial power has gone on for a long time. It is past time to put that genie back into the bottle.

Utter nonsense. Pi is used in mathematical formulas and changing it would effect the accuracy.

But please tell us how allowing gays to marry will effect your marriage in any way. And please be specific.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

The count was already at 34 states as of April last year, calling for a convention, which is enough for an Article V convention. This week simply will intensify the demand for it.

I didn't think the official letters were sent already to Congress and Executive yet.

Congress is required to call it..............they will not do so............the states will have to start it themselves......................The status Quo will never go along.

Yep and Boehner the Cowardly Fool and Speaker of the RINOs is reviewing it.

34 States Call for Constitutional Convention and Possible Rewrite

"House Speaker John Boehner is reviewing whether the action by Michigan has triggered the constitutional mandate that Congress call such a convention.

Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California recently asked Boehner for clarification as to where the state count stands, and if Michigan has tipped the two-thirds majority needed to make the convention call.

"With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House — and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment — determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should be in this case," Hunter wrote to Boehner.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told The Washington Times that the Republican leader will have his lawyers review the request."

So far he has sat on the convention order for more than a year, and this will put more heat on him to finally announce something soon. Don't see how he cant obey the Constitution and call for the Convention.

 

[Votto]

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.

They merely expanded the definition. And without effecting straight marriage at all.

Lol, that is like saying that legally changing Pi to be 3.0 doesn't change anything as it doesnt affect those who think it is otherwise.

The word has been redefined and that is not the Constitutional role for judges. This abuse of judicial power has gone on for a long time. It is past time to put that genie back into the bottle.

Utter nonsense. Pi is used in mathematical formulas and changing it would effect the accuracy.

But please tell us how allowing gays to marry will effect your marriage in any way. And please be specific.

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.

The count was already at 34 states as of April last year, calling for a convention, which is enough for an Article V convention. This week simply will intensify the demand for it.

I didn't think the official letters were sent already to Congress and Executive yet.

Congress is required to call it..............they will not do so............the states will have to start it themselves......................The status Quo will never go along.

Yep and Boehner the Cowardly Fool and Speaker of the RINOs is reviewing it.

34 States Call for Constitutional Convention and Possible Rewrite

"House Speaker John Boehner is reviewing whether the action by Michigan has triggered the constitutional mandate that Congress call such a convention.

Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California recently asked Boehner for clarification as to where the state count stands, and if Michigan has tipped the two-thirds majority needed to make the convention call.

"With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House — and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment — determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should be in this case," Hunter wrote to Boehner.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told The Washington Times that the Republican leader will have his lawyers review the request."

So far he has sat on the convention order for more than a year, and this will put more heat on him to finally announce something soon. Don't see how he cant obey the Constitution and call for the Convention.

There is no doubt in my mind that the recent ruling by SCOTUS has only added fuel to the fire for the Article V movement.

Now lets take a deep breath and blow into the fire.

 

[WinterBorn]

The idea that this convention will give you all that you want and cost you nothing only shows your unwillingness to recognize the opposition to your desires. More than 50% of the population has no problem with gay marriage. But a large part of the population has some issues with the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Open that gate and you may well lose more than you gain.

 

[Votto]

The idea that this convention will give you all that you want and cost you nothing only shows your unwillingness to recognize the opposition to your desires. More than 50% of the population has no problem with gay marriage. But a large part of the population has some issues with the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Open that gate and you may well lose more than you gain.

What does it matter what percentage thinks about certain kinds of marriage? Why is the state involved at all? All I hear from the gay community is that they want government out of the bedroom. Nohing could be further from the truth. What they really want is Obama under the sheets giving them a thumbs up for their gay union. Who knows, he might even join in. Conversely, if they were polygamists Obama would give them a thumbs down because he does not approve because that is just yucky.

And if conservatves really want government out of their lives, they would deny themselves the state perks for their marriage. If not, they just like to suckle at the teet of Big Brother.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

They merely expanded the definition. And without effecting straight marriage at all.

Lol, that is like saying that legally changing Pi to be 3.0 doesn't change anything as it doesnt affect those who think it is otherwise.

The word has been redefined and that is not the Constitutional role for judges. This abuse of judicial power has gone on for a long time. It is past time to put that genie back into the bottle.

Utter nonsense. Pi is used in mathematical formulas and changing it would effect the accuracy.

But please tell us how allowing gays to marry will effect your marriage in any way. And please be specific.

That it is nonsense is irrelevant, it was proposed as law and it is no more than the nonsense of redefining marriage to include homosexual long running trysts.

And how it affects me is demonstrated already by the damage the butt-fuckers movement is doing to our jurisprudence.