States to Massachusetts court: We don't think so!

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, February 6, 2004

[Dalan]

"Hate to one up but I have the ultimate immoral Senator here in New York."

Yeah, you have yourself a real winner there too! I don't know... Hillary is terrifying in a Stalinist/Maoist sort of way... I guess that is worse than the sheer ridiculousness and folly of our Senators (although one of ours is a murderer... Beat that! Neener neener neener! )

[Dalan]

"In perpetually impoverished western MA, Kerry is not particularly well liked. Nor Kennedy, who once described Springfield as on the NY border... no one in charge on Boston has any clue what people need out here, let alone,as in Kennedy's case, where "here" is. "

Absolutely true. I grew up in southwestern MA; it's like a totally different state. I now live in north central MA - closer to, but still not in the thick of, the PC socialist engine of Boston. But the stench is much stronger here...

[SoKatt]

lol...me too.

That's great, counterpunch- thanks for the a.m. laugh!

[counterpunch]

Thanks. :D

It's supposed to be a take-off on romance novels. I hope that wasn't lost on anyone.

I've got more goodies on my user page, if you want to check out some of my other work.

[Sacajaweau]

FOSTER........neener neener neener.....Mine is just more clever than yours.

[Sacajaweau]

Let's look at another bit...disability...Many have aids and are collecting.

[Chances Are]

While I agree something must be done, we have to be very careful about this Constitutional amendment thing. Not the amendment per se, but the fact that to enact it, a Constitutional Convention must be held.

There is nothing in constitutional law, or case law (to the best of my knowledge), that can restrict a ConCon to one issue. Unless great care is taken, and mighty political force brought to bear constantly and consistently, this could end up a disasterous Trojan horse.

As we all know, there are a great many forces out there that would salivate (uncontrollably!) at the prospect of a ConCon that they could hijack for their own nefarious purposes.

If we do go down this road, then now, more than ever, will eternal vigilance be required.

Be careful, my friends. We are entering dangerous times...

CA....

[Dalan]

"FOSTER........neener neener neener.....Mine is just more clever than yours."

Oh yes! Touche. I guess I must concede the superior evilness of your Senator. *sigh*

Well, mine is fatter! (barely)

[PattonReincarnated]

>> Hilarious! Gawd, how awful it is to be a Massachusetts resident. Those two pieces of scum are "my" Senators!

>> Oh, the humiliation.

You better leave MA before they build the wall to keep you in. You better hurry. I won't tell you where to go. If I did, the people of that state may be upset with me. Look for a state that has low or no taxes, allows you to own a gun, carry it, and use it. A state that has no queer congressmen. A state that doesn't have murdering Senator. A state that doesn't have a anti-American, Hanoi Jane American Traitor B$itch loving Senator. A state that doesn't have a baseball team, or one that doesn't choke. Most important, a state where the people would not torrerate all of these things.

[Dalan]

You better leave MA before they build the wall to keep you in. You better hurry.

Not really practical for me right now.

Actually, this may be just the sort of thing Massachusetts needs. We aren't all Cambridge socialist intellectuals, you know. Somehow, this state has cultivated a political environment that has anesthetized the general populace.

But we did elect Mitt Romney, and came very, very close to repealing our state income tax in '02. Perhaps this state is waking up? I encourage the rest of the country to focus its wrath like a laser beam upon Massachusetts. It's therapeutic.

[Sacajaweau]

Well, we know yours floats....and swims...away....alone.

Have a good day. It's been fun!

[chatham]

I liked your post so much I sent it over to Howie Carr and hope he reads it, since his show today will be on Gay mariage and your arguement is right on target.
Moore was thrown out for his stand on the 10 Commandments, the Supremes in Sodomassachusetts should be put out of their "JOBS" for the same reason.
I live in the Peoples Republic of Sodomassachusetts,
Sad, Sad, Sad State.

[MississippiMan]

I doubt whether any amendment to the Constitution will protect marriage.

You're correct. I do support an amendment, but it's probably an utter waste of time. This is a country that has shoved God, and His principles upon which the country was founded, aside. As a result, the moral fabric is unraveling, now at a manic pace. It's only gonna get worse from here on out. That's reality.

MM

[A. Patriot]

Question: If the States have to recognize Massachusetts homosexual marriages because of the "full faith and credit" provision of the U.S. Constitution, then does Massachusetts have to recognize my state issued permit to carry a concealed weapon?

[xsysmgr]

...the fact that to enact it, a Constitutional Convention must be held.

Not so:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,...which,... 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...

—The U.S. Constitution, Article V

In fact, there has never been a second constitutional convention; all of the amendments have been passed by acts of Congress, ratified by three-fourths of the states.

[jla]

^

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

More on the state of Massachusetts.

Reminds me of Paul Revere.

[dvwjr]

You got it right. The Constitutional Convention called by the two-thirds of the several States to enact amendments has never been used. It was used under the Articles of Confederation to create the current Constitution.

If the Congress could get the "Definition of Marriage" amendment out the door, it would have two routes for ratification which have both been used. One is to submit the amendment to the 50 State Legislatures, and hope that the necessary 38 could happen in say, ONE year. Not probable since some State Legislatures meet for a very limited window which could require two or more years for them to take up the debate and any vote on said amendments.

The other route is to submit the amendment to State Conventions for ratification. This has the advantage of being much faster and was used in the year 1933 to ratify the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th amendment (Prohibition) from the Constitution.

The 21st Amendment was submitted to the State Conventions on February 20th, 1933 and by December 5th, 1933 the State of Utah became the last necessary State Convention which ratified the 21st Amendment. Less than nine months, the fastest ratification in US history.

I wonder how long a marriage amendment would take?


dvwjr

[Chances Are]

OK, good. You think that's how this will go down?

CA....

[rrrod]

ya think we can build a wall around MA?..just a thought...maybe require residents to get passports to visit the USA?