- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
AllbyMyRelf
| Favorite team: | Mississippi St.  |
| Location: | Virginia |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | Economics |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 3980 |
| Registered on: | 11/1/2014 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: World first: Andrzej Bargiel skied down Everest without bottled oxygen
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 11/9/25 at 9:01 am to Bobby OG Johnson
That’s pretty cool
1
re: Why is it socially acceptable to be “terrible with names”?
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 11/8/25 at 9:01 am to philly444
It’s not. People say this all the time, but if you’re in an important social situation, you must remember names.
If you don’t remember someone’s name, you have soured the (potential) relationship.
If you don’t remember someone’s name, you have soured the (potential) relationship.
re: What are your go to for comfortable office shoes?
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 11/7/25 at 9:33 am to geauxtigers87
Allen Edmonds
re: What does it say that Freeze was so much more successful at Ole Miss than Auburn?
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 11/2/25 at 3:45 pm to Fleurs
Different recruiting era
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 3:18 pm to 3down10
Yup. Constitution is a document that gives limited powers to the federal government. Only in very few ways does it restrict the power of the states. The state constitutions were the documents that limited the powers of the states.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 3:16 pm to 3down10
Black freedmen were restricted from gun ownership in almost every state.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:58 pm to 3down10
quote:The intent I’m describing wasn’t that citizens should be unfree at some federal level, rather, the intent I’m describing is that the bill of rights was only intended to restrain the federal government
but these things you say could happen didn't really happen. So how can that have ever been in the intent?
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:55 pm to 3down10
quote:Yes
Are you saying there were laws that prevented citizens from owning them and/or regulated what they could own?
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:49 pm to 3down10
quote:You’re the only one who thinks this. Go read a book.
I don't think it was applied and done the way you are claiming, or that it was actual intent.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:37 pm to 3down10
quote:Most of it did not happen in practice because the States are the ones who ratified the constitution. In other words, the State constitutions already had the same beliefs they were enshrining in the constitution. Of course they wouldn’t be radically different.
I guess it's just coincidence none of this really happened in practice.
But some of it did happen. States did have laws on speech, on religion, and on guns. All you have to do is Google this to learn more.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:30 pm to 3down10
I’m sorry that you’re wrong and that you’re taking it this hard. If it helps, the 14th amendment was ratified and you don’t have to worry about these things.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:27 pm to 3down10
1. No, “right of the people” doesn’t mean “right of the state,” but it means a federal noninterference in a right the people already possessed in the context of maintaining a militia.
2. A state could (and some did) have established religions, restrict speech, or regulate the press, unless their own state constitutions forbade it.
3. Only applied to federal troops. A state government could, theoretically, pass a law allowing quartering of its militia in private homes unless prohibited by its own constitution.
4. State police could conduct unreasonable searches under federal law, though many state constitutions adopted similar protections independently.
5. Only federal prosecutions. States could have different standards for double jeopardy, grand juries, and self-incrimination.
6. States could — in theory — hold people indefinitely or deny jury trials unless their own constitutions prohibited it.
ETA: This is confirmed with the 1833 SCOTUS case Barron v. Baltimore
2. A state could (and some did) have established religions, restrict speech, or regulate the press, unless their own state constitutions forbade it.
3. Only applied to federal troops. A state government could, theoretically, pass a law allowing quartering of its militia in private homes unless prohibited by its own constitution.
4. State police could conduct unreasonable searches under federal law, though many state constitutions adopted similar protections independently.
5. Only federal prosecutions. States could have different standards for double jeopardy, grand juries, and self-incrimination.
6. States could — in theory — hold people indefinitely or deny jury trials unless their own constitutions prohibited it.
ETA: This is confirmed with the 1833 SCOTUS case Barron v. Baltimore
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:21 pm to 3down10
Here is the text of the 10th Amendment:
- enter into treaties/ alliances
- coin money or emit bills of credit
- pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws
- impair obligations of contracts
- lay duties on imports
Notably, the bill of rights is not applied to the states here. Hope this helps.
quote:Let’s break it down.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
quote:In this clause “United States means the federal government, and the powers are the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution like the spending power, power to regulate interstate commerce, etc. So this clause deals with powers that are not listed in the constitution as having been given to the federal government.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution
quote:The “it” here refers to the Constitution. So this clause refers to a list of powers that the constitution explicitly says States do not have. These are outlined in Article 1, Section 10:
nor prohibited by it to the States
- enter into treaties/ alliances
- coin money or emit bills of credit
- pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws
- impair obligations of contracts
- lay duties on imports
quote:So everything that was not delegated to the federal government or expressly prohibited for the states resides with the states. If the states don’t touch it, then with the people.
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Notably, the bill of rights is not applied to the states here. Hope this helps.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 1:54 pm to 3down10
quote:It’s becoming increasingly clear that you don’t understand my position at all.
The general welfare is defined in the constitution as the amendments themselves, and the general welfare clause gives congress permission to uphold them. It does not mean any bullshite you can claim is "for the good of the people". You sound like a communist who claims the state is the people. Jefferson argued specifically against your interpretation correctly saying that such a thing would render the Constitutions specific limits meaningless, effectively giving Congress unlimited power.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 1:53 pm to 3down10
quote:You’re confused by the structure. The constitution (as originally written/ understood, not as interpreted by leftist New Deal judges) gave the federal government enumerated powers. These were the only powers the federal government had. As you stated, everything else belonged to the state under the 10th amendment. Everything not regulated by the state then belonged to the people. I.e., if neither the state nor the federal government had the power to regulate it, then that authority/ discretion was left to the individual.
This is flat out lie because the 10th amendment directly states that those which were not prohibited were the only ones given by the states. The fact states were getting away with things and the supreme court ruled in such a way doesn't mean that's how it was ever supposed to work. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Because if the states are allowed to stomp on those rights, then you don't have them at all to being with. I don't know about you, buy my rights are God given.
The bill of rights were limitations on the federal government. They were clarifications that notwithstanding any powers given to the federal government in the constitution, the federal government couldn’t violate that bill of rights.
Importantly, however, the bill of rights did not apply to the states. A state constitution could regulate speech or say you had to be a specific religion to hold office, or say who couldn’t own a gun.
It wasn’t until the 14th amendment that the bill of rights were incorporated to the states. This is called incorporation doctrine.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 1:39 pm to 3down10
quote:I had no idea Aristotle, Aquinas, our founding fathers, Edmond Burke, etc were all communists.
And your "common good" is just a communist/socialist argument.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 1:37 pm to 3down10
quote:Yes, I know what federalism is.
Do you understand the levels of government? I'm not talking about the 3 branches of government, I'm talking about the levels of government
I think we pretty much agree on policy positions, but here is where we split:
quote:Originally, the bill of rights did not apply to the states, and they could regulate speech, who could own guns, etc. By adopting the 14th amendment, are we not conserving the constitution? You seem to think that was an ok change. I agree that it was an ok change, but what if in the future “basic rights” comes to mean welfare through an amendment to the constitution? Is that conservatism? You’re ok with the 14th amendment, what about that one?
I recognize that is some people in a state want to be and do something a certain way, then that's their right. If California as a state wants to give free healthcare and do stupid shite, that is their right as a state unless it infringes on the basic rights - of which the federal government is supposed to step in.
What you’re defending is a set of rules that can be changed. It’s not a foundation.
I defend the constitution because, as it currently stands, it’s a wise inheritance that has proven to promote the common good. As soon as that changes, I would no longer defend the constitution.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 1:19 pm to 3down10
quote:This is ultimately an incoherent test of whether someone is a conservative. I’ll tell you why I think that:
What are you trying to conserve if it's not the US constitution? If you aren't trying to conserve that, then in what way are you trying to conserve anything?
The constitution is a liberal document. It sets procedural limitations for lawmaking and sets forth protections for freedom of the people. Freedom is its main goal, and it gets its authority by consent of the governed through a representation. Those are all the hallmarks of liberalism—not conservatism.
The constitution contains a provision that sets forth the mode of amendment. If the government used that method to radically change the constitution, would that be conservatism? After all, they are operating within the procedural limits set by the document through consent of the governed. By amending the constitution rather than throwing it out, they have conserved it.
This cannot be what conservatism means. Conservatism is a philosophy which oftentimes shares overlapping policy positions with libertarians (limited government, property rights), but from a different foundation of thought.
Libertarianism/ liberalism comes from the enlightenment, believes that people are rational, and seeks to preserve liberty through neutral rules.
Conservatism is about preserving moral order above all else. Moral order is prior to individual choice in conservatism, and laws must be not be neutral but instead must be tailored to the common good.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 1:03 pm to 3down10
You haven’t described what you think conservatism is. And then when you listed an example of a conservative, you gave a notable libertarian—Ron Paul.
Do you think libertarianism is the same as conservatism?
Do you think libertarianism is the same as conservatism?
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 12:48 pm to 3down10
quote:I’d be interested to hear what you think a conservative is. I agree that it seems like most on here think conservatism is just classical liberalism.
I don't think most of you have any clue what it means to be a conservative.
Popular
81
