Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice strawman yourself, I guess you think because of the 10th Amendment states can make slavery illegal and take away a woman's right to vote too.
No because slavery is outlawed via the 13th Amendment and the right of women to vote is protected via the 19th Amendment...
The 10th Amendment give states all rights and powers not given to Federal Government, if it is not found in Article 1 Section 8, it is left to the states.
A lot of that debt comes via subsidizing zero-contributing red states that take in far more tax dollars than they pay. If they pay that share, they can leave, and I'll gladly help them pack.
No because slavery is outlawed via the 13th Amendment and the right of women to vote is protected via the 19th Amendment...
The 10th Amendment give states all rights and powers not given to Federal Government, if it is not found in Article 1 Section 8, it is left to the states.
Like the 13th Amendment and the 19th Amendment, the National Firearms Act of 1934 doesn't take away any power from the states. I am well aware you don't like any bills that involve guns because you have gun in your name, but that doesn't automatically make all gun bills a violation of state rights.
Like the 13th Amendment and the 19th Amendment, the National Firearms Act of 1934 doesn't take away any power from the states. I am well aware you don't like any bills that involve guns because you have gun in your name, but that doesn't automatically make all gun bills a violation of state rights.
Oh but it does..
it Violates the 2nd Amendment rights of states and citizens alike A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It limits the powers, liberties, and freedoms of these states and the people living in those states.
If they limit the rights of people who are not activity incarcerated(prisons and mental wards) passed at the local, state, or federal level, it does violate the 2nd Amendment rights of the all Americans..
it Violates the 2nd Amendment rights of states and citizens alike A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It limits the powers, liberties, and freedoms of these states and the people living in those states.
If they limit the rights of people who are not activity incarcerated(prisons and mental wards) passed at the local, state, or federal level, it does violate the 2nd Amendment rights of the all Americans..
Then the USSC would rule that it is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Has that happened yet? Then it isn't an infringement. Which still wouldn't make it an infringement of state power.
So when it is decided to be an infringement by the USSC, let me know, until then the National Firearms Act of 1934 is not an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
Then the USSC would rule that it is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Has that happened yet? Then it isn't an infringement. Which still wouldn't make it an infringement of state power.
So when it is decided to be an infringement by the USSC, let me know, until then the National Firearms Act of 1934 is not an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
Well, it is a ridiculous argument because the last major second amendment case was McDonald v. Chicago, which ended in a 5-4 split decision. In truth, if you look back over the course of court cases in regards to many parts of the US constitution, you'll see a string of split 5-4 decisions.
What you are effectively saying is that, if the Supreme Court, who disagrees with each other as much as nine-member panel of judges can disagree with each other, declare that something is or is not an infringement, then that is absolutely the way it is and nothing can change it? Except you know, when later on the Supreme Court over-rules previous rulings.
If you've ever been to Democraticunderground. Any time the Supreme Court rules against what they think is right, their response is always "Scalia and Thomas will be gone soon, once they are replaced we will just bring another case before the court".
The truth is, the opinion of the Supreme Court is about as valid to me as the opinion of anyone I just picked up off the street. If you can't see the biases in our court system then you are either blind or a fool.
I would agree with you that legally, the government has not yet declared its own acts unconstitutional. But does that mean they never will? How do you even know?
In 1798 Congress passed the alien and sedition acts. They were declared unconstitutional by the father of the constitution himself, James Madison, in his Virginia Resolution. In fact, he argued that states could nullify federal laws that they declared were unconstitutional.
You have far too much faith in government. They are just people like you and me, and most of the ones that run this place, are power-hungry sociopaths.
Well, it is a ridiculous argument because the last major second amendment case was McDonald v. Chicago, which ended in a 5-4 split decision. In truth, if you look back over the course of court cases in regards to many parts of the US constitution, you'll see a string of split 5-4 decisions.
What you are effectively saying is that, if the Supreme Court, who disagrees with each other as much as nine-member panel of judges can disagree with each other, declare that something is or is not an infringement, then that is absolutely the way it is and nothing can change it? Except you know, when later on the Supreme Court over-rules previous rulings.
If you've ever been to Democraticunderground. Any time the Supreme Court rules against what they think is right, their response is always "Scalia and Thomas will be gone soon, once they are replaced we will just bring another case before the court".
The truth is, the opinion of the Supreme Court is about as valid to me as the opinion of anyone I just picked up off the street. If you can't see the biases in our court system then you are either blind or a fool.
I would agree with you that legally, the government has not yet declared its own acts unconstitutional. But does that mean they never will? How do you even know?
In 1798 Congress passed the alien and sedition acts. They were declared unconstitutional by the father of the constitution himself, James Madison, in his Virginia Resolution. In fact, he argued that states could nullify federal laws that they declared were unconstitutional.
You have far too much faith in government. They are just people like you and me, and most of the ones that run this place, are power-hungry sociopaths.
Well let me know when the National Firearms Act of 1934 is ruled an infringement, until then it is legal and the law and doesn't violate any state rights. Which it doesn't violate any state rights to begin with.
No, they do not they are a new nation, dissolved of all ties political, militarily, and financial.
AFTER they resolve their debt. And even after that, the new country would remain forever financially tied to the USA by the USD. A currency which the new country would have no further say in control.
A vast amount of any state, like infrastructure was placed there via Federal funding or supports. Or is owned centrally.
Interstate Highways.
Schools, Universities and eduction.
Military bases.
Levees, dams, ports.
Electrical grid and such.
Public lands.
National Parks and Forests.
Medical facilities.
What would the new country do for their seniors, losing SS and Medicare?
We the people, if we should so desire, could obviously waive any seceding state's obligation to our debt.
I would vote against this, as I wouldn't want to make it easy for a state to secede.
Of course another scenario could be that we the people would desire to simply crush the rebellion.
It's been done before.
Then the USSC would rule that it is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Has that happened yet? Then it isn't an infringement. Which still wouldn't make it an infringement of state power.
So when it is decided to be an infringement by the USSC, let me know, until then the National Firearms Act of 1934 is not an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
The USSC does not have the "end all be all" power it claims it has.
The USSC upheld Slavery, Segregation, and Interment of Americans during Both World Wars, did that make it right or Constitutional?
Does matter what the USSC or leftist think, it is a infringement on our civil rights just as a poll taxes was for blacks to vote.
Well, it is a ridiculous argument because the last major second amendment case was McDonald v. Chicago, which ended in a 5-4 split decision. In truth, if you look back over the course of court cases in regards to many parts of the US constitution, you'll see a string of split 5-4 decisions.
What you are effectively saying is that, if the Supreme Court, who disagrees with each other as much as nine-member panel of judges can disagree with each other, declare that something is or is not an infringement, then that is absolutely the way it is and nothing can change it? Except you know, when later on the Supreme Court over-rules previous rulings.
If you've ever been to Democraticunderground. Any time the Supreme Court rules against what they think is right, their response is always "Scalia and Thomas will be gone soon, once they are replaced we will just bring another case before the court".
The truth is, the opinion of the Supreme Court is about as valid to me as the opinion of anyone I just picked up off the street. If you can't see the biases in our court system then you are either blind or a fool.
I would agree with you that legally, the government has not yet declared its own acts unconstitutional. But does that mean they never will? How do you even know?
In 1798 Congress passed the alien and sedition acts. They were declared unconstitutional by the father of the constitution himself, James Madison, in his Virginia Resolution. In fact, he argued that states could nullify federal laws that they declared were unconstitutional.
You have far too much faith in government. They are just people like you and me, and most of the ones that run this place, are power-hungry sociopaths.
Epic Win, Run for office..
Furthermore where in the Constitution does the Supreme Court have the highest say?
5 of out 9 lawyers should have the final say on all matters, yeah that what the founders had in mind...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
