TEXAS GOVERNOR INTRODUCES GROUNDBREAKING PLAN TO OVERRIDE OBAMAS TYRANNY
Jan 8, 2016 16:51:26 #
Jan 8, 2016 17:41:27 #
idaholover wrote:
http://www.infowars.com/texas-governor-introduces-groundbreaking-plan-to-override-obamas-tyranny/
I'm for it. Either that or Civil War.
Jan 8, 2016 18:03:32 #
idaholover wrote:
http://www.infowars.com/texas-governor-introduces-groundbreaking-plan-to-override-obamas-tyranny/
Be careful with this. It is not a sure fire way to put the feds in a box. It could go the other way. Also, who would be running the show behnd the scenes? The same malignant Progressive criminals that are perpetuating the crimes against the American people now? Danger Will Robinson, danger.
Jan 8, 2016 18:05:07 #
Jan 8, 2016 18:13:04 #
green wrote:
when did Obama get a t****y?
Did you mean when he became a t****y?
Jan 8, 2016 18:22:12 #
Jan 8, 2016 18:27:00 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
idaholover wrote:
http://www.infowars.com/texas-governor-introduces-groundbreaking-plan-to-override-obamas-tyranny/
Under the rules he wants some states would still have s***ery. Utah would still have bigamy. I'm not saying that is his intent but if it isn't he should take a deep breath and think things through, although I'm led to believe that that isn't his strong suit.
Jan 8, 2016 18:47:37 #
thom w wrote:
Under the rules he wants some states would still have s***ery. Utah would still have bigamy. I'm not saying that is his intent but if it isn't he should take a deep breath and think things through, although I'm led to believe that that isn't his strong suit.
Do you have an opinion on the state that have legalized marijuana even though it violates federal law? Are "states rights" applied selectively or equally?
Jan 8, 2016 19:13:44 #
gmcase wrote:
Be careful with this. It is not a sure fire way to put the feds in a box. It could go the other way. Also, who would be running the show behnd the scenes? The same malignant Progressive criminals that are perpetuating the crimes against the American people now? Danger Will Robinson, danger.
Then it's Civil War.
Jan 8, 2016 19:14:37 #
Jan 8, 2016 19:19:55 #
It would still have to be ratified by three quarters of the states.
To quote article 5
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.
To quote article 5
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.
Jan 8, 2016 19:24:51 #
ken hubert wrote:
Then it's Civil War.
Maybe or maybe not. I was just pointing out that thinking a constituional convention would resolve an out of control and criminal Federal government should be weighed carefully against the risks. The criminals in charge now would be running it. No?
Jan 8, 2016 19:41:53 #
thom w wrote:
Under the rules he wants some states would still have s***ery. Utah would still have bigamy. I'm not saying that is his intent but if it isn't he should take a deep breath and think things through, although I'm led to believe that that isn't his strong suit.
Don't move to Utah!
Jan 8, 2016 19:42:33 #
Zophman wrote:
Do you have an opinion on the state that have legalized marijuana even though it violates federal law? Are "states rights" applied selectively or equally?
He can't answer that!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.