With a constitutional amendment he is asking the states to give up their right to decide this issue. It would be their decision to keep their 10 Amendment rights or give them. The states can accept or reject the amendment, very 10th Amendment and Constitutional to me.

With a constitutional amendment he is asking the states to give up their right to decide this issue. It would be their decision to keep their 10 Amendment rights or give them. The states can accept or reject the amendment, very 10th Amendment and Constitutional to me.

 

Nope, it does not have to be unanimous, so it wouldn't be left up to individual states, it would be up to a majority of the states working in collusion.

Nope, it does not have to be unanimous, so it wouldn't be left up to individual states, it would be up to a majority of the states working in collusion.

 

I did not say anywhere unanimous. I did state in another post "vast majority", three-fourths actually.

What is so difficult to understand amending the Constitution is allowed? Is it that deal that liberals really do not care for following the mandates of our Founding Fathers, because it gets in the way of them creating big government? And that instead of court rulings that violate the Constitution, they would have to pass amendments?

I did not say anywhere unanimous. I did state in another post "vast majority", three-fourths actually.

What is so difficult to understand amending the Constitution is allowed? Is it that deal that liberals really do not care for following the mandates of our Founding Fathers, because it gets in the way of them creating big government? And that instead of court rulings that violate the Constitution, they would have to pass amendments?

 

Why are we arguing about what it takes to pass amendments? That's not the point I was making. It's a red herring.

 

You CANNOT be shouting about "states rights" and then say "Constitutional amendment." It's that simple. I don't care which one he supports. You just can't support both.

What I see is the use of the Constitution as intended. At least he is willing to allow the use of the Constitution to allow the states to determine the issue.

He is not supporting 2 different philosophies. He wants to leave it up to the states and it would be the states deciding to keep their rights or to allow it to pass to a constitutional amendment.

I see the proper use of the Constitutional process, as intended by the Founding Fathers.

What I see is the use of the Constitution as intended. At least he is willing to allow the use of the Constitution to allow the states to determine the issue.

He is not supporting 2 different philosophies. He wants to leave it up to the states and it would be the states deciding to keep their rights or to allow it to pass to a constitutional amendment.

I see the proper use of the Constitutional process, as intended by the Founding Fathers.

 

Are you intentionally missing the point?

 

When he says he's a "states rights" guy he believes, for example, that each state should decide what they want to do regarding abortion INSTEAD of the federal govt mandating that it has to be legal. He is NOT saying that whatever the MAJORITY of the states decide should be the rule for ALL states.

 

So now he's saying he wants to have a law that EVERY state has to follow even if they do not agree with it .

 

Surely, you see the issue of consistency, right?

If Perry or Bachmann win the nomination, I'm writing in Westsider's name...:lol:

If Perry or Bachmann win the nomination, I'm writing in Westsider's name...:lol:

 

And if it's Romney, I'm officially on the UKMF 2012 campaign! Of course, since I know you like him, you'll put him on as your running mate just to spite me. :lol:

What I see is the use of the Constitution as intended. At least he is willing to allow the use of the Constitution to allow the states to determine the issue.

He is not supporting 2 different philosophies. He wants to leave it up to the states and it would be the states deciding to keep their rights or to allow it to pass to a constitutional amendment.

I see the proper use of the Constitutional process, as intended by the Founding Fathers.

The "Founding Fathers" weren't infallible. They allowed slavery and denied women the right to vote.

 

Clyde is correct ... Perry can't have it both ways.

Why can you not understand that it takes three-fourths of the states to pass an amendment? The states are giving their permission to make the change. It is not like they just wave a magic wand and it changes. And the reason we do not have slavery and women have the right to vote are because of amendments, so the Founding Fathers did do a good job.

Not understanding the constitutional process is a big reason we are in the mess we are in today.

Why can you not understand that it takes three-fourths of the states to pass an amendment? The states are giving their permission to make the change. It is not like they just wave a magic wand and it changes. And the reason we do not have slavery and women have the right to vote are because of amendments, so the Founding Fathers did do a good job.

Not understanding the constitutional process is a big reason we are in the mess we are in today.

 

OK, BB. We're done on this point because you do not understand what Gov Perry means when he argues for "states rights." No sense in wasting server space.

According to an article I read yesteday, the candidate with the best hair will probably win the general election.

Five new Perry laws.. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/shooting-hogs-helicopters-fishing-hands-five-perry-approved-170245980.html

Five new Perry laws.. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/shooting-hogs-helicopters-fishing-hands-five-perry-approved-170245980.html

 

I have no problem with any of those 5 laws.

I do not see what the problem is if you use the Constitutional process. It may seem to be taking both sides, but if you use the Constitution as intended then it is not.

Maybe the Constitution stands in the way for federal control of the American people on the left.