- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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 1:40 pm to Chancellor
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:40 pm to Chancellor
quote:
Because of Incorporation Doctrine- a method for interpreting law invented from whole cloth by the Court in the 1st half of the 20th Century.
So let me get this correct.
According to federalism. A state can do whatever it wants unless it is strictly forbidden by the constitution.
So California could say we are going to legally confiscate all legally owned weapons and based on a federalist philosophy they have every right to do so?
Who would ever be for a system of government like that? (Obviously liberals are, but I don’t think you are one)
2
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:41 pm to Chancellor
quote:EXACTLY like SCOTUS invented a non-existent Constitutional right in Roe.
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.quote:
Because of Incorporation Doctrine- a method for interpreting law invented from whole cloth by the Court in the 1st half of the 20th Century.
Roe was jurisprudential sleight-of-hand (bullshite). So is the Incorporation Doctrine.
Consistency is hard.
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:46 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:No, because the California constitution contains a "taking" clause parallel to that found in the federal Constitution. California would be required to compensate the owners of those weapons. But, yes, they could pass such a law if it provided for just compensation to the owners.
So California could say we are going to legally confiscate all legally owned weapons and based on a federalist philosophy they have every right to do so?
Just like Texas can pass a law prohibiting abortion, while New York can choose to allow it. Federalism.
quote:People who think that a unitary national government is a bad idea, and who want to let the people of each of the 50 States order their own lives as they see fit.
Who would ever be for a system of government like that?
The very NATURE of federalism is that different States will choose to do things differently, and that a person is free to seek residence in whatever State best reflects the manner in which HE wants to order his OWN life.
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:46 pm to catholictigerfan
Yes. That's Federalism. And that's how the US operated until a liberal SCOTUS grabbed power for the federal government via Incorporation Doctrine in the 1920s.
Under the US Constitution, Californians can do what Californians want to do and pass laws for themselves.
What those morons decide for themselves doesn't mean anything to me because I don't live in California. The stupid laws they pass, there, would never fly, here, where I live.
If Californians like oppressive laws, more power to them. They can bear the consequences.
I'm for Federalism. It means a less-powerful Federal government and more power to the states (the people).
Under the US Constitution, Californians can do what Californians want to do and pass laws for themselves.
What those morons decide for themselves doesn't mean anything to me because I don't live in California. The stupid laws they pass, there, would never fly, here, where I live.
If Californians like oppressive laws, more power to them. They can bear the consequences.
I'm for Federalism. It means a less-powerful Federal government and more power to the states (the people).
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:51 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Yes, you are.
Thanks for clarifying your position because you confused me.
quote:
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.
So the law should be this way. Constitutional or not, I strongly disagree with you.
If this is the intention of the founders. That states can basically take away your right to bear arms, but the federal government can’t than I believe they are in error.
If someone has a right to bear arms, it would seem all states would have to honor that right.
New York being able to ban all weapons, while Texas can allow all weapons would be a bad system of government. There should be certain rights protected by a constitution. While it should be left primarily to the states to pass laws, that doesn’t give them the right to pass laws that would limit a certain right.
Plus think about the definition of a right. If I as a citizen of the United States have a right to bear arms, why would it be ok for a state to limit that right? While I have domicile in Louisiana, I am still a citizen of the United States. Even if I move to California I don’t lose my right to bare arms.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:52 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
No, it does not.
The Incorporation Doctrine relies largely upon the following language from the 14th Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
The Second Amendment does not create any "privilege or immunity" for US citizens. To the contrary, as we state so often on this forum, it simply LIMITS the actions of the federal government, and it DOES NOT itself "create" a right for any person to bear arms. As such, the 2nd Amendment does NOTHING that CAN be extended to the State governments under the 14th Amendment.
that's an interpretation not fact (under current interpretation of law by the Supreme Court at least )
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:52 pm to Chancellor
quote:Well, that and the completely unjustifiable expansion of the Commerce Clause.
That's Federalism. And that's how the US operated until a liberal SCOTUS grabbed power for the federal government via Incorporation Doctrine in the 1920s.
quote:It is really that simple.
I'm for Federalism. It means a less-powerful Federal government and more power to the states (the people).
Do you want one-size-fits-all government in a unified national system (like France, for instance) or do you want 50 laboratories of democracy (like we are SUPPOSED to have here)?
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:52 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
It feels like we have had a breakthrough.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:53 pm to xxTIMMYxx
quote:
All of this crap is spiraling towards conflict. Major conflict
That’s what the THINK they want.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:54 pm to Bamatab
State laws dont trump constitution. No matter what your ppl want.
Thats a feature, not a bug.
Thats a feature, not a bug.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:57 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Just like Texas can pass a law prohibiting abortion, while New York can choose to allow it. Federalism.
So Texas can outlaw murder, while New York can allow it.
Yes, I think abortion is murder.
A system of government that would allow that is in error.
quote:
The very NATURE of federalism is that different States will choose to do things differently, and that a person is free to seek residence in whatever State best reflects the manner in which HE wants to order his OWN life.
So I guess I don't whole heartily agree with federalism. While I agree with the idea that states should be able to try their own way and the people have the freedom to choose where to go. I think rights are something not even a state can infringe.
I guess one way to define my position is that rights belong to a citizen no matter what state he lives in. If a state were to infringe on a citizens rights that law should be deemed unconstitutional by the courts.
If that is somehow against the constitution than I guess the constitution isn't the world's greatest document.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 1:58 pm to LSUnation78
actually have to agree with Aggie here.
Until 14th amendment stops incorporating things to the States (there is only a couple that it doesn't, I forgot though), and the Commerce clause gets reigned back in, we will never have true Federalism
Until 14th amendment stops incorporating things to the States (there is only a couple that it doesn't, I forgot though), and the Commerce clause gets reigned back in, we will never have true Federalism
Posted on 6/23/22 at 2:03 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:Agreed. And in a Constitutional, federal republic, those "certain rights" must be specifically enumerated in the federal constitution.
There should be certain rights protected by a constitution
For the reasons outlined above, I do not believe that the areas of governance denied to the federal government by the BoR fit that bill.
quote:Social contract theory.
Plus think about the definition of a right. If I as a citizen of the United States have a right to bear arms, why would it be ok for a state to limit that right?
Again, the US Constitution DOES NOT "give" you that right. It is simply a topic on which the federal government is prohibited from legislating. Perhaps your State constitution will also prohibit your State from legislating on that topic. Or perhaps not.
Again, that is the very heart of federalism.
As to the "right to bear arms," the Founders could EASILY have precluded the States from the same infringements described in the 2nd Amendment. They easily COULD have said "A well regulated Militia() being necessary to the security of a free State, neither the federal government nor the government of any State shall infringe upon the right of the people to bear arms."
Our ancestors chose NOT to adopt and/or ratify that language. Why not? Because the Constitution would never have been ratified by the States, if it contained any more limitations upon the actions of the States than those already included in the body of the text (e.g. Art.I, Sec.10).
Posted on 6/23/22 at 2:10 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:YES. Because criminal law was ALWAYS intended to be a matter left to the States. Each State got to decide what was a felony vs misdemeanor. Each State got to decide what was murder vs manslaughter. Each State got to decide what was criminal vs WHAT WAS NOT.
So Texas can outlaw murder, while New York can allow it. Yes, I think abortion is murder.
If you didn't like that your State banned (for example) consumption of distilled beverages, you could always choose to move to a State that allowed it.
quote:And in a federal system, each State is ALLOWED to be "in error," and to adjust its system until the citizens of THAT STATE feel that there is no longer an error.
A system of government that would allow that is in error.
quote:That would certainly be a valid system. It just isn't OUR system. In our system, ONLY those "rights" specifically guaranteed across all States are guaranteed to be uniform across all States.
I guess one way to define my position is that rights belong to a citizen no matter what state he lives in
That type of "right" is rare, and should be so.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 2:12 pm to AggieHank86
I’ll leave it at this because I’m tired of going back and forth.
I believe all human beings have certain rights. Given by God and so forth. The right to life would be one of those. Any governing body shouldn’t have the right to infringe those rights.
When it comes to gun rights, it relates to the right to protect your own life and property. Guns are a great way to protect yourself and should be protected not only by the constitution but also from State infringement.
For me, Federalism comes second to the rights we have as human beings.
If federalism would allow abortion because of state rights, I cannot endorse that system of government. I probably disagree with many on this board. But the right to life of a human being in the womb must be protected and no state should have the right to legally end that life. While it would go against federalism I would be ok with a federal ban on abortion.
While I hope SCOTUS overturns RVW I will not rest until every human being is protected, no matter if they live in Texas or California. No country should be ok with any state allowing legalized murder, no matter if that fits with their constitution.
I believe all human beings have certain rights. Given by God and so forth. The right to life would be one of those. Any governing body shouldn’t have the right to infringe those rights.
When it comes to gun rights, it relates to the right to protect your own life and property. Guns are a great way to protect yourself and should be protected not only by the constitution but also from State infringement.
For me, Federalism comes second to the rights we have as human beings.
If federalism would allow abortion because of state rights, I cannot endorse that system of government. I probably disagree with many on this board. But the right to life of a human being in the womb must be protected and no state should have the right to legally end that life. While it would go against federalism I would be ok with a federal ban on abortion.
While I hope SCOTUS overturns RVW I will not rest until every human being is protected, no matter if they live in Texas or California. No country should be ok with any state allowing legalized murder, no matter if that fits with their constitution.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 2:13 pm to TrueTiger
quote:My views of federalism coalesced in high school and have been damned consistent for 40+ years.
It feels like we have had a breakthrough
The unique nature of my views is that (for me) they apply BOTH to State policies that I like AND to State policies that I do not like.
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 2:16 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with your holding the belief that federalism is not the perfect system. You are ABSOLUTELY entitled to believe that a unified national system (e.g. France) is the better approach. Just as I am entitled to disagree with you.
catholictigerfan
Nice chatting. Have a nice day.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 2:16 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
It was a nice chat. You have a nice day too
Posted on 6/23/22 at 2:23 pm to Bamatab
quote:
Hochul went on to state that she is "prepared to go back to muskets" through gun restrictions.
That is going to be fun to concel when out and about.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 2:25 pm to Oates Mustache
quote:
So now the Dems are state's rights activists?
They were states' rights activists in the 1950's and 1960's when it came to segregation.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News