- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New York Gov. Hochul warned that her state is "just getting started" on gun restrictions
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:07 pm to rooster108bm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:07 pm to rooster108bm
quote:
The 14th amendemet says it does moron.
Hey, I'm ok with repealing the 14th amendment if Hochul is.
0
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:07 pm to Bamatab
quote:
Dems/leftist's heads would explode if the states actually allowed to hold the rights that originally was intended.
Exactly, people in some red states would have full auto mailed to their house with no checks at all.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:09 pm to Bamatab
quote:Agreed.
the Dems/leftist's heads would explode if the states actually allowed to hold the rights that originally was intended.
Left or Right, ideologues interpret the Constitution in accord with their own predispositions and biases, rather than just reading and applying the ACTUAL DAMNED LANGUAGE (Textualism).
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:13 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Except that it doesn't.
Right. So then a state is perfectly within their rights to deny an accused criminal of the right to an attorney. A state is perfectly within their right to deny black people and women the right to vote. A state is perfectly within their right to warrantless searches and seizures of citizen's property and possessions. Hell, a state can just declare that there will be no elections, the executive and legislative branch will just continue to serve until they die.
Or is all of that bullshite, and you just want to selectively apply your particular brand of tyranny on the citizens?
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:13 pm to Bamatab
I wonder if the federal courts will take over the states' right to regulate that area within their states like they did for forced integration?
Member when that happened? I member.
Member when that happened? I member.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Anyone who says otherwise does not understand federalism.
Except all those pesky cases under the XIVth Amendment.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:15 pm to Chancellor
quote:Exactly.
Incorporation Doctrine is how you go from a ban on Congress passing a law establishing a national religion to a teacher being fired for praying or reading the Bible because the teacher- and agent of the state- somehow establishes a national religion by praying.
The 1st Amendment prohibited the FEDERAL government from adopting a NATIONAL official religion.
At the time that the BoR was ratified, a majority of the 13 original states HAD an official state religion. If you had tried to tell the people that they were ratifying an amendment that was taking their state religions away from them, the damned Constitution would never have been ratified. Hell, it might not have gotten ratification by a single state.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:16 pm to Bamatab
New York will be the New Chicago before you know it
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:17 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Left or Right, ideologues interpret the Constitution in accord with their own predispositions and biases, rather than just reading and applying the ACTUAL DAMNED LANGUAGE (Textualism).
That's as rich as two feet up a bull's arse coming from you.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
, a majority of the 13 original states HAD an official state religion.
I'm OK with having 50 independent laboratories all doing experiments to see what works and what doesn't.
A - B testing is a great way to find which systems get the best results.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:26 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Texas can allow unlimited ownership of full-auto military rifles, if it wants to do so (bc NFA is unconstitutional). New York can limit its citizens to nail files and slingshots, if IT wants to do so.
Wait I'm confused.
The Supreme Court just ruled a state law is unconstitutional. So it's clear from that the States don't have the freedom to limit their citizens right to bear arms in what ever way they see fit. But you are saying they do because it's federalism.
So New York in your hypothetical couldn't limit their citizens to nail files and slingshots.
The 2nd amendment doesn't mention either the state government nor the federal government. It seems from the language of the BoR itself that it would also limit what state governments can do. That is why SCOTUS was able to rule a state law unconstitutional.
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 1:28 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:27 pm to troyt37
quote:CORRECT. The BoR does NOT require a State to allow access to an attorney, JUST LIKE the BoR does not preclude a State from taking property without just compensation. See Barron v. Baltimore (1833). Any citizen who sees that as problematic (I certainly do) can work to amend State law or can "vote with his feet."
So then a state is perfectly within their rights to deny an accused criminal of the right to an attorney
quote:No. The 15th and 19th Amendments SPECIFICALLY preclude a State from doing so.
A state is perfectly within their right to deny black people and women the right to vote.
quote:YES. It is bad policy, but that IS "federalism."
A state is perfectly within their right to warrantless searches and seizures of citizen's property and possessions
quote:YES. The Constitution leaves to the individual States the organization of their own governments.
a state can just declare that there will be no elections, the executive and legislative branch will just continue to serve until they die.
quote:Either one believes in the premise of federalism, or one does not. I do. Apparently, you do not. Such is life.
Or ... you just want to selectively apply your particular brand of tyranny on the citizens?
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:32 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:Yes, they certainly exist, which is why I specifically stated that their basis (the Incorporation Doctrine) is unconstitutional.
Anyone who says otherwise does not understand federalism.quote:
Except all those pesky cases under the XIVth Amendment.
They were wrongly-decided by a SCOTUS eager to help expand the scope of the federal government.
I admit to some confusion here. I thought most posters here DISAGREE with the exponential, postbellum expansion of the central government and believe it to have been unconstitutional. You cannot just blame Lincoln. He wasn't working alone, and the expansion did not stop with his death.
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:33 pm to troyt37
The Bill of Rights was only intended by those who wrote it and ratified it to apply to the Federal government. The SCOTUS held the same on more than one occasion in the 19th Century (Barron and Cruikshank).
States made their own laws. For example, the BoR states that the US Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion, yet, individual states established on official state religion LONG afterward.
It wasn’t until the 20th Century and a very liberal SCOTUS began using the 14th Amendment to “incorporate” or apply the BoR to the states.
But, the 14th Amendment was never intended by those who wrote it or ratified to do so.
States made their own laws. For example, the BoR states that the US Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion, yet, individual states established on official state religion LONG afterward.
It wasn’t until the 20th Century and a very liberal SCOTUS began using the 14th Amendment to “incorporate” or apply the BoR to the states.
But, the 14th Amendment was never intended by those who wrote it or ratified to do so.
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:34 pm to Bamatab
Shes about to find out how well armed her citizens actually are, now that its not criminal to be so
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:35 pm to Chancellor
quote:
The Bill of Rights was only intended by those who wrote it and ratified it to apply to the Federal government. The SCOTUS held the same on more than one occasion in the 19th Century (Barron and Cruikshank).
I understand the argument but as I stated above, why would SCOTUS rule that a state law is unconstitutional if a State can do whatever they want?
Something’s not adding up.
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:37 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
I understand the argument but as I stated above, why would SCOTUS rule that a state law is unconstitutional if a State can do whatever they want? Something’s not adding up.
Because of Incorporation Doctrine- a method for interpreting law invented from whole cloth by the Court in the 1st half of the 20th Century.
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:37 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I admit to some confusion here. I thought most posters here DISAGREE with the exponential, postbellum expansion of the central government and believe it to have been unconstitutional.
I do. But most of those cases haven't been reversed. I cannot suffer a Court that selectively applies it to things like forced integration, Title IX, phantom "right to privacy", and yet not apply to literal, textually protected, natural and guaranteed rights.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:39 pm to Bamatab
quote:
And we should have the right of determination of what we want to do in terms of our gun laws in our state."
Oh, the irony.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:39 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:Yes, you are.
Wait I'm confused.
I am not arguing that this is the current state of the law. I am arguing that this is what the Constitution actually SAYS and how it SHOULD BE applied.
quote:Again, read ARt. I, Sec.10 and the Federalist papers. Article 10 shows the language that the Founders used when they WANTED a to limit the actions of a State government ("no state shall ...") The 2nd Amendment does not utilize that language. The Federalist Papers make it clear that the BoR was intended to address concerns about overreach by the new central government.
It seems from the language of the BoR itself that it would also limit what state governments can do. That is why SCOTUS was able to rule a state law unconstitutional.
You are a Catholic, so you should find it interesting that Maryland was one of the colonies that DID have an official State religion ... Catholicism.
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News