- 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
0
Posted on 6/23/22 at 3:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Anyone who says otherwise does not understand federalism.
Look buddy guy,
a lot of well qualified men and a few women have sat on the bench. Democrats, Republicans, independents, Whigs. Not one has or will agree with you and their sole job is to interpret the constitution. You are the problem, you think you’re always right and only your views are correct. In reality, you have no idea what you are saying.
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 4:07 pm to LSURep864
quote:
But yet. They raise hell at the idea of a state restricting abortion which isn't even a legitimate constitutional right.
National divorce is the only solution. As a Christian I only advocate the peaceful way. But I see it ending otherwise unfortunately.
Not sure logistically how a amicable separation could be executed but I think it’s worth investigating and discussing. The typical American Marxist/Groomer is nearly 180 degrees out of phase ideologically with America First patriots patriots. There’s already a two tier justice system (one for Marxists/Groomers and one for America First patriots) might as well see this thing to its logical conclusion.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 4:21 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
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.
Like marriage being defined as a man and a woman?
Posted on 6/23/22 at 4:22 pm to AggieHank86
While I agree that's what it originally was, if people who love freedom kept playing with those rules we are fricked.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 4:24 pm to Bamatab
It seems as though the Democrats have their marching orders:
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 4:25 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 4:41 pm to SlickRickerz
quote:I have no clue who you may be, but you are clearly not a serious student of the Constitution. I am FAR from alone (even in this thread) in understanding that the Incorporation Doctrine is "bad law" to exactly the same extent as Roe. In fact, the VAST majority of the Constitutional scholars who hold that view are solidly what you would call "right wing" or "conservative."
SlickRickerz
You just have your panties in a bunch because I have shown that the concept "cuts both ways" ... sometimes favoring the Left and sometimes favoring the Right. I just do not CARE. To me, the effect on Left vs Right ideology on specific substantive issues is FAR less important than a correct application of the Constitution.
I made these arguments in a thread where the natural result is that some states might limit access to firearms, so you are losing your mind. If I had made exactly the same argument in a thread arguing to overturn Roe (which I have done repeatedly), you would have been cheering wildly. The disingenuity is just sad.
quote:The Whigs pre-dated the Incorporation Doctrine by at least half a century.
Whigs
quote:What a monumentally stupid thing to say. Of course I think my views are correct. I would hardly hold them otherwise.
you think ... your views are correct
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 5:09 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 4:45 pm to Flats
nm
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 5:10 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
If someone has a right to bear arms, it would seem all states would have to honor that right.
If you read both the federalist argument and the anti federalist argument in the minutes of the convention thats exactly what they intended.
Without anti federalists there wouldnt even be a bill of rights.
I always get a kick out of those that claim they are Federalist because of the modern definition.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 5:16 pm to rooster108bm
quote:It IS interesting how the terminology got flipped over time. Today's Federalists would definitely have fallen into the anti-federalist camp in the late 18th century.
Without anti federalists there wouldnt even be a bill of rights.quote:
I always get a kick out of those that claim they are Federalist because of the modern definition.
Back then, a "federalist" favored a stronger central (federal) government, at the cost of the authority of state governments. An anti-federalist would now be described as favoring "states rights."
Today, a "federalist" opposes the notion of a unified state, in favor of retaining greater authority at the State level. Today, most FEDERALISTS would be described as favoring "states rights."
This post was edited on 6/23/22 at 5:20 pm
Posted on 6/23/22 at 5:42 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Today, a "federalist" opposes the notion of a unified state, in favor of retaining greater authority at the State level. Today, most FEDERALISTS would be described as favoring "states rights."
Exactly. The problem is that most states are now more powerful than what the federal government was at that time.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 5:44 pm to Bamatab
Will her security team be participating in these restrictions?
That should tell you all you need to know
That should tell you all you need to know
Posted on 6/23/22 at 5:44 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
bc NFA is unconstitutional
I'm hopeful this is the next big 2A decision and that it doesn't take another 14 years.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 5:45 pm to Bamatab
quote:
It's not what New Yorkers want.
I doubt that.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 5:49 pm to anc
quote:
So in the next seven days when abortion is returned to the states, that will be a travesty, right Governor?
You might as well dig for oil in a city street if you’re looking for consistency from a leftist.
Posted on 6/23/22 at 6:40 pm to rooster108bm
quote:
I always get a kick out of those that claim they are Federalist because of the modern definition.
Yes, that appears to have arisen from Dick Nixon's "New Federalism" return of power to the states. "Federalism" in itself is just the joining of smaller states into a central government, and is often used as the means to study the separation of powers (rather than merely advocating one's world view on powers).
Posted on 6/23/22 at 6:46 pm to SlickRickerz
quote:
Look buddy guy,
a lot of well qualified men and a few women have sat on the bench...
That seems to be the most prudent way to view this situation. The application of (most) of the bill of rights to the states is a doctrine that is over 100 years old. Many of the landmark cases over the last 100 years deal with states' interference with individual rights. Trying to establish a strong confederalist system of government would require not only overturning 1 case, but a whole litany of cases. You would not find many justices in the last century that attempt to take that position
Posted on 6/23/22 at 6:52 pm to Bamatab
When she was an A rated NRA politician before the dems offered her a fat plumb as Cuomo's second.
Lots of snakes in the political grass.
Lots of snakes in the political grass.
Page 5 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News