H.J. RES 56 ** NOW HAS 89 Co-Sponsors ** !!

Previous Thread here..... ^ | Today | http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HJ00056:@@@N

[davidosborne]

Pass it on... Lets get this to the floor ASAP !!!

[davidosborne]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HJ00056:@@@N

[Keith in Iowa]

H.J.RES.56
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

[davidosborne]

H.J.RES.56
Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Sponsor: Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] (introduced 5/21/2003) Cosponsors: 89
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

---

COSPONSORS(89), BY DATE [order is left to right]: (Sort: alphabetical order)
Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 5/21/2003 [TX-4] Rep McIntyre, Mike - 5/21/2003 [NC-7]
Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 5/21/2003 [MN-7] Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 5/21/2003 [VA-1]
Rep Vitter, David - 5/21/2003 [LA-1] Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 6/2/2003 [PA-16]
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2003 [MD-6] Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 6/2/2003 [VA-5]
Rep Wilson, Joe - 6/2/2003 [SC-2] Rep Weldon, Dave - 6/2/2003 [FL-15]
Rep Pence, Mike - 6/10/2003 [IN-6] Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [OK-5]
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [NC-3] Rep Ryun, Jim - 6/10/2003 [KS-2]
Rep Johnson, Sam - 6/10/2003 [TX-3] Rep DeMint, Jim - 6/10/2003 [SC-4]
Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/10/2003 [MO-2] Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 6/10/2003 [TX-26]
Rep Norwood, Charlie - 6/10/2003 [GA-9] Rep King, Steve - 6/24/2003 [IA-5]
Rep Isakson, Johnny - 6/24/2003 [GA-6] Rep Souder, Mark E. - 6/24/2003 [IN-3]
Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 6/24/2003 [MN-6] Rep Miller, Jeff - 6/25/2003 [FL-1]
Rep Lewis, Ron - 6/25/2003 [KY-2] Rep Hayes, Robin - 7/8/2003 [NC-8]
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 7/8/2003 [SC-3] Rep Burns, Max - 7/8/2003 [GA-12]
Rep Collins, Mac - 7/8/2003 [GA-8] Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 7/8/2003 [AL-3]
Rep Wamp, Zach - 7/8/2003 [TN-3] Rep Stenholm, Charles W. - 7/8/2003 [TX-17]
Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 7/10/2003 [MI-2] Rep Brady, Kevin - 7/10/2003 [TX-8]
Rep Whitfield, Ed - 7/10/2003 [KY-1] Rep Hunter, Duncan - 7/10/2003 [CA-52]
Rep Doolittle, John T. - 7/10/2003 [CA-4] Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 7/10/2003 [SC-1]
Rep Cantor, Eric - 7/10/2003 [VA-7] Rep Gingrey, Phil - 7/15/2003 [GA-11]
Rep Davis, Lincoln - 7/15/2003 [TN-4] Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) - 7/15/2003 [MS-3]
Rep Wicker, Roger F. - 7/15/2003 [MS-1] Rep Taylor, Gene - 7/17/2003 [MS-4]
Rep Herger, Wally - 7/17/2003 [CA-2] Rep Sullivan, John - 7/22/2003 [OK-1]
Rep Garrett, Scott - 7/22/2003 [NJ-5] Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - 7/22/2003 [LA-3]
Rep Cubin, Barbara - 7/22/2003 [WY] Rep Forbes, J. Randy - 7/23/2003 [VA-4]
Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 7/23/2003 [NJ-4] Rep Schrock, Edward L. - 7/23/2003 [VA-2]
Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 7/23/2003 [CA-11] Rep Hayworth, J. D. - 7/23/2003 [AZ-5]
Rep Stearns, Cliff - 7/23/2003 [FL-6] Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) - 7/23/2003 [CA-50]
Rep Pearce, Stevan - 7/23/2003 [NM-2] Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 7/23/2003 [IL-6]
Rep Barton, Joe - 7/23/2003 [TX-6] Rep Boehner, John A. - 7/23/2003 [OH-8]
Rep Gutknecht, Gil - 7/23/2003 [MN-1] Rep Peterson, John E. - 7/23/2003 [PA-5]
Rep Tiahrt, Todd - 7/23/2003 [KS-4] Rep Franks, Trent - 7/23/2003 [AZ-2]
Rep Carter, John R. - 7/24/2003 [TX-31] Rep Emerson, Jo Ann - 7/24/2003 [MO-8]
Rep Chocola, Chris - 7/24/2003 [IN-2] Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 7/24/2003 [CA-46]
Rep Crane, Philip M. - 7/24/2003 [IL-8] Rep Shuster, Bill - 7/24/2003 [PA-9]
Rep Sessions, Pete - 7/24/2003 [TX-32] Rep Beauprez, Bob - 7/24/2003 [CO-7]
Rep Ballenger, Cass - 7/25/2003 [NC-10] Rep Myrick, Sue - 7/25/2003 [NC-9]
Rep Toomey, Patrick J. - 7/25/2003 [PA-15] Rep Culberson, John Abney - 9/3/2003 [TX-7]
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 9/3/2003 [IL-16] Rep Osborne, Tom - 9/3/2003 [NE-3]
Rep Feeney, Tom - 9/3/2003 [FL-24] Rep Lucas, Ken - 9/3/2003 [KY-4]
Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 9/3/2003 [PA-4] Rep Coble, Howard - 9/9/2003 [NC-6]
Rep Calvert, Ken - 9/9/2003 [CA-44] Rep Turner, Michael R. - 9/9/2003 [OH-3]
Rep Kingston, Jack - 9/10/2003 [GA-1] Rep Boozman, John - 9/10/2003 [AR-3]
Rep Goodlatte, Bob - 9/24/2003 [VA-6] Rep Alexander, Rodney - 9/24/2003 [LA-5]
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 9/24/2003 [CO-6]

[agitator]

I'll pass on silly amendments to the Constitution re-iterating something everybody already knows. Stomp homosexual "marriage" where it belongs. Personally, I don't want a habit formed like in NY where the Constitution gets amended as often as most people change their underwear.

[The Duke]

Here in Florida last year we passed a ridiculous amendment to our state constitution that protects the welfare of farm animals. Surely if we degenerate any further we'll all simply devolve into primordial goo!(?)

[demlosers]

in the State Constitution? - so stupid.

[Dutchgirl]

The Peta people got an ammendment on the ballot through petitions. It concerned the treatment of pregnant pigs. It will end the pig farming industry in Florida by making it too expensive to compete.

Now the legislature is looking at a way to amend the "ballot amendment" provision, by requirung the actual cost of initiatives to be included with the description of the measures. One sticking point, it would sort of follow that the legislation THEY pass should come with a price tag as well.

In the past 6 years the sheeple of Florida have mandated unfunded high speed rail service, and a class size limit- even though we are already experiencing a teacher shortage.

[OldFriend]

Next they'll be wanting a constitution convention so they can write an amendment against telemarketers.

Just what we need, more laws.

NO THANKS

[thoughtomator]

Should propose an amendment to define 'sunrise' as 'the time immediately following the appearance of the sun over the eastern horizon.'

[Chad Fairbanks]

I'm not going to support a consitutional amendment for something like this - it is just an example of the feds further eroding the power of the various states.

I think taking this route is going to bite us in the ass in the future...

[Gritty]

We don't need a Constitutional Amendment on something as basic as this. All we need is some common sense. This is a frivolous Amendment.

If they want to do something worthwhile, impeach some out-of-control Federal judges instead!

[A Navy Vet]

Also agree it's a frivolous amendment to our Constitution. Ya want one that will do some good? ... term limits and in-session reductions!

[=Intervention=]

The classroom amendment was pure insanity, to say nothing of the pregnant pig one. Geesh. I guess the Palm Beach folks got their way with that one...

[Contra]

How about an amendment that means something, like concealed carry in all 50 states and D.C.?

[Congressman Billybob]

Good afternoon, friend,

I thoroughly agree with you. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason for this problem to be approached with a constitutional amendment. Instead, the people who don't want the federal courts to redefine the word "marriage" should simply put this issue in the restriction of jurisdiction bill currently before Congress.

That would solve the problem, WITHOUT either the waste of time or bad example of playing with the Constitution. Sometimes I am amazed at the capacity of apparently intelligent Members of Congress to miss the point, totally.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Democrats Dancing to Tunes of Glory?," discussion thread on FR. Article will likely be on ChronWatch.

[longtermmemmory]

respectfully, there is no law state or federal which could not be overcome by some judge "interpriting" the law. The US spremes have made what should have been left a state issue into a federal issue.

The restriction of jurisdiction bill could simple be declared unconstitutional or even inapplicable to this particular issue.

I agree regarding the lack of desire to ammend the constitution, but there are no viable legal aleternatives.

[Capitalism2003]

Anyone got the toll free capitol switchboard number? I think we could be more effective if it were posted here and the thread bumped to the top of the list every hour or so. Leave your senators and congress members a voicemail about it.

[longtermmemmory]

goto

http://www.house.gov

it will allow you to email or phone call your representative.

ALL representatives keep track of every call on an issue.

type in your zip code and off you go to participation in US political power!!

[Congressman Billybob]

Limitation laws have already been tested in the federal courts. And the federal courts have OBEYED such laws. The last time such a law was tested concerned the trans-Alaska pipeline. Tree-huggers got an injunction against the pipeline. Then Congress passed a law withdrawing the courts' jurisdiction in the matter. Then the courts obeyed that law and dropped all proceedings.

Article III, Section 1, is explicit that Congress controls this matter. For now, the Justices like Ginsburg who are willing to ignore and reject plain English in an explicit command in the Constitution are in the minority. As long as that remains true, the method I suggest is as workable now as it has been in the past.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Democrats Dancing to Tunes of Glory?," discussion thread on FR. Article will likely be on ChronWatch.