Show of HandsShow of Hands

VirtualCongress November 18th, 2017 8:01pm

Justice PeaceKeepaGirl (NPP-ME) proposes a Constitutional Amendment:

0 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Fank BUILD THAT WALL
11/18/17 4:53 pm

Nay for the same reasons as last time

Reply
FloridaPopulist Nationalist Right
11/18/17 1:38 pm

Nay. These degenerate bills are sickening.

Makes me hate both the left and the right on vc. The right only cares about slicing the government and half, and it's only sufficient argument against bills like these are its unconstitutional!

And the left dosent do anything on the economic front except half measures and compromise. And instead promotes the degeneration of society and these absolutely disgusting, catastrophic bills

Reply
FloridaPopulist Nationalist Right
11/18/17 1:38 pm

I can't be in either camp

FloridaPopulist Nationalist Right
11/18/17 1:39 pm

*promotes the degeneration of society and these terrible catastrophic bills*

*the right only cares about slicing the gov in half*

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 1:54 pm

Your society is oppressive and deserves to be deconstructed :)

FloridaPopulist Nationalist Right
11/18/17 2:01 pm

Bower is oppressed everyone! The only thing that is suppressed In modern society is the natural order and how we are as evolutionary beings. Liberalism has destroyed the human identity

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 2:02 pm

Lol...homosexuality is displayed in all mammals. It is evolutionarily natural

Senate101 San Diego
11/18/17 2:04 pm

Florida I wouldn't talk about catastrophic bills if I were you.

TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
11/18/17 1:28 pm

Nay. This does not protect an established Constitutional right; rather, it creates a new, extraconstitutional privilege.

Reply
bower8899 ...
11/18/17 1:35 pm

Which is why it's a constitutional amendment...

TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
11/18/17 1:54 pm

Amendments don’t give us rights. Government RECOGNIZES God-given rights. And this isn’t one of them.

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 2:18 pm

If you're god doesn't want me to love whoever I want, I don't want anything to do with him.

johonmilla Monroe, nc
11/18/17 3:10 pm

Tlaney, I don’t know who told you that. “Government recognizes god given rights”. We didn’t give women the right to vote or outlaw slavery until years after the original 10 were added to our constitution. Did god wait years until he recognized those as rights? Also, how are eights like “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” god given when he would be against both...

TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
11/18/17 4:29 pm

JM, you’re not understanding what I said. God gave slaves the right to be free from the beginning of time. It took our government years to RECOGNIZE that God-given right. And God would not be against freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Christians do not oppose the freedom of other religions to practice in our country; the Founding Fathers
just opposed the establishment of an official state denomination like they had lived under in England.

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 4:34 pm

Doesn't the bible talk a lot about slavery though....like a lot. Like it lays out laws for buying slaves

johonmilla Monroe, nc
11/18/17 6:38 pm

And god isn’t exactly tolerable of other religions. And the Bible is restrictive of speech, like women speaking at church, blasphemy, etc. Our founding fathers stated this nation is a secular one, not founded on any religion.

jfish82285 Tennessean in Colorado
11/18/17 6:47 pm

Is it a god-given right to allow the people of the individual states to directly elect their senators? Is it a god-given right of the government to establish a federal income tax? What about the protection against unwarranted searches? You see what I’m saying, Tom?

MrAmerica Peaceful protestor
11/18/17 1:09 pm

Nay. Takes away rights from the local government.

Reply
bower8899 ...
11/18/17 1:13 pm

Boohoo.

Rights of people matter more

johonmilla Monroe, nc
11/18/17 1:16 pm

Peoples rights are not a state issue. I’m guessing if you were living in the 60s you would also argue that segregation is a state matter?

jztheman Connecticut
11/18/17 1:20 pm

The difference between race and sexuality is that in the constitution, it protects the freedom of race. Anything in the constitution is automatically a federal issue. Sexuality is not in the constitution, making it a state issue, as all powers not listed in the constitution are to be given to the states.

johonmilla Monroe, nc
11/18/17 3:12 pm

Jz, what? You do realize “freedom of race” isn’t in the constitution. If you consider that freedom the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment, you do know those were added as a constitutional amendment almost 70 years after the constitution was originally signed?
Finally, this is a constitutional amendment, not a bill.

jztheman Connecticut
11/18/17 3:26 pm

I was more talking about the freedom of races so they can't be discriminated against. I will admit I could've worded my first comment better then I did. Also, segregation was technically a state issue until Congress put it into the constitution. Thus making it a federal issue.

ctskapski x
11/18/17 3:40 pm

Rights of the people>Rights of the Local Government>Rights of the state.

ctskapski x
11/18/17 3:43 pm

Moreover, the Constitution exists in part to protect the rights of the people.
An amendment protecting the rights of people, even at the expense of local government ability, would be in line with its framework.

jztheman Connecticut
11/18/17 4:02 pm

Well, we can't go against the constitution. If we do, that's about the least American thing you can do. I do support this amendment being added, never said I didn't. I'm just stating that if the constitution doesn't say it's a federal power, it's not. The constitution now does say segregation is under federal control because it took the government way too long to give equal rights. Segregation was a state issue until it was added into the constitution by a technically standpoint.

ranger13 Texas
11/18/17 1:06 pm

It was reworded to remove marriage from the amendment.

VirtualCongress Speaker NDAmerican
11/18/17 1:02 pm

Congress shall make no law, prohibiting domestic partnership, sexual practice, or any form of relationship, among any persons, excepting that any party lack the protection of informed consent in such relations, or should any party be below the age at which consent may be reasonably considered informed; nor shall any such law be made or enforced by any State or locality.

VirtualCongress Speaker NDAmerican
11/18/17 1:02 pm

Summary: Protects freedom of consensual relationships. Removes language addressing marriage, to address concerns about tax breaks and the institution of marriage brought with regards to a previous version of the present amendment.