Posted on 07/09/2015 2:07:13 AM PDT by markomalley
He certainly is incompetent. He has engendered only contempt for it!
I've run a couple of times on that exact platform. Been pretty much ignored though, even around here.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
As legislative proposals, those are decent recommendations.
There needs to be a master list of those kind of suggestions as well as a list of suggestions for civil disobedience that make sense in accomplishing the objective of protecting religious freedom and turning back the obergefell decision.
I keep saying that if the purpose of the 14th was to grant rights to minority classes for all things, then what was the point of the 15th and the 19th amendments? Of course the 14th gave no such right which is why the constitution had to be amended to force states that would not change their laws, to abide by the new law of the land. Thus if people who wanted gay marriage they would have had to go the long hard road of getting a super majority of states to approve of it, then if that happened they would have had to put it into the constitution to force any hold out states to make it legal. But no, 5 justices found a right that did not exist.
That cheers me up! Of course, morally corrupt people are quite happy with morally corrupt judges. Nonetheless, the fight must go on.
Absolutely.
That people can “define and express their identity” however they want in no way means that there exists a right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever reason.
If a group of persons wishes to form a commercial venture they must comply the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern corporations. If a group of persons wishes to form a personal venture they must comply with the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern marriages. This is the process defined by law.
There is a process defined in law for changing law.
Throughout history in every major society marriage has been between man and woman, or man and women. Now comes a novel definition.
The advocates of this novel definition are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. No advocate of this novel definition has followed the laws enacted by the elected legislature to have this novel definition incorporated into the laws, instead they have claimed that they have been deprived of a right.
Again, there is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose. This is no infringement upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights, their ability to “define and express their identity”. The process defined in law for changing law is available to all and no person or group has been denied the process for changing law.
To aid the advocates of the novel definition to obtain what they could not obtain legislatively, judges have imposed upon society this novel definition.
To protect against judicial novelties and to affirm the universal understanding of “marriage” citizens in several states have followed the legal procedures required in that State, procedures enacted by the elected legislature, to have placed before the voters a proposed amendment to the State Constitution. To have such a proposed amendment placed on the ballot is no small undertaking, typically requiring a large number of signatures collected in each district. The proposed amendment must then be adopted by the voters, typically with a requirement that 60% or more voters must approve for the amendment to be adopted.
There is nothing stopping advocates of this novel definition from doing likewise so that their novel definition is incorporated into the law.
Judges are not Legislators. The Supreme Court is not an unelected super-legislature whose edicts are absolute. They are not kings.
For judges to abuse the power of their office, to exercise that power beyond the extent of their authority, to impose upon society a novel definition so to mold society to their personal views is abject tyranny.
Opinions regarding the definition are immaterial, this is a question of rule of law and directly concerns every Person and State. The opinion of these judges can and must be ignored by States. States must protect their citizens and their administrators from this tyranny, by force if necessary. Lawlessness unchecked will grow and devour all.
The advocates of this novel definition are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description.
There is no right to violate the laws of nature and nature's God. Any laws that attempt it are null and void from the get-go.
This truth is the essence of "the rule of law and not of men." In other words, the foundation of of American republican self-government.
The states need to invoke the 10th Ammendment but they just are not doing it. They are afraid to lose Federal funds. So look for gay marriage in all 57 states.
Impeachment and follow on trials of judges were hardly necessary before the 17th Amendment. Checks and balances worked. They haven't since the 17th.
No impeachments of either judges or high Obama officials will happen because it isn't in the personal, electoral interest of individual senators. Say “impeachment,” and a world of hurt will fall on the errant senator.
The only worthwhile amendments are structural, like the 17th itself. Like the people, states are members of our constitutional republic and MUST have a seat at the legislative table.
How? By what means? The 17th Amendment denied them their legitimate place at the legislative table.
Return the states to the senate and the states will have the mechanism to protect their rights every day.
Article V.
The 10th Amendment is the mechanism states have to ignore unconstitutional laws and go their own way. An Article V convention is unnecessary and very dangerous in the current atmosphere of the USA.
We don’t need more amendments to the Constitution for the Supreme Court to ignore, misinterpret or overrule.
While I agree with you wholeheartedly, by the time the 17th Amendment is repealed, there will be no republic left. It is also questionable if it can be repealed. Many people have fallen for the mobocracy deception and think they control the legislators to get whatever they want while the exact opposite is true.
I fear there is no way to restore decency without first destroying indecency. If we tuck our tails because we fear the word “impeachment” and lack conviction to remove tyrannical judges, then I would suggest that moral decent America is done and good riddance. The sooner the fascist state collapses and is destroyed, the better.
Correct!! I wouldn't trust the same citizens that put an Obama office with any decisions of importance. They won't get it until they lose everything.
If just doing the right, moral and virtuous “thing” could be relied upon, the Framers would have set up a simple democratic system. James Madison spoke at length on this subject. All agreed that men could not be trusted to be angels.
Instead they created a very complex system of interacting checks, balances, and most importantly division of power. The first and foremost division was the vertical separation of powers between the states and the government they created. Leaving the states out of a system that acts on them makes as much sense as removing the people from the system . . . no sense at all! The states would have never ratified the constitution had they not been represented in congress.
Repeal of the 17th isn't just a “nice thing to have,” it is essential that both the people and states participate in a government that acts upon them.
Not the New Deal, Great Society, Obama, nor dozens of horrible supreme court decisions could have happened if the states were still in the senate.
The 17th allowed all power to swirl into DC. It is now flowing like a river to the executive and judicial branches. If power is not once again diffused across the states, all effective authority will soon reside in the president. Elections will end up a pro-forma approval of an El Presidente.
Our institutions no longer serve their constitutional purposes. The question is: how can they be restored?
Article V before we can't.
We have state governments for a reason. Regardless of what today’s media would have you believe, state representatives are not elected state paper-shufflers or federal mandates. State governments share power with the federal government as equal partners.
I would urge you to educate yourself more on the concept of nullification which is what the 10th amendment is. I think you have wedded yourself to this Article V deal to the point that you can’t recognize a more simple remedy which is already in place.
Your chances of being hit in a drone strike are better than the chance that an Article V convention will ever convene much less effect new amendments that ever get ratified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.