Now do you suppose the Founding Fathers envisioned

[Flash]

Texas House passes bill allowing police to arrest migrants - New York Post
https://nypost.com › 2023 › 10 › 26 › news › texas-house-passes-bill-allowing-police-to-arrest-migrants
1 day agoTexas is one step closer to giving police the authority to arrest migrants and deport them from the US after State Republicans approved a new bill Thursday. The proposal, known as House Bill 4 ...

god bless texas.

Many are questioning whether Texas has the authority to carry out federal functions. I think it is largely for publicity purposes to put pressure on federal officials since I doubt law enforcement wants to expand their responsibilities and expenses.

The Texas state troopers and reserve units on the border reportedly have little to do and the border patrol complains that they are just in the way.

But it is good politics for Governor Abbot.

 

[Flash]

you see the conundrum, right? that is why I agree with nullification. I believe that federal law enforcement should be forced to ask for help from state agencies in enforcing federal law, and if the state refuses, then the feds cannot enforce. It's why the founders believed that the federal government could not interfere with the policing in any state.

I doubt the founders believed that since the purpose of the constitutional convention was to allow more direct central control over the citizens in the form of taxes, raising an army, coining money, regulating commerce.

Under Washington the Whiskey Rebellion was about local farmers resisting federal authorities seeking to collect the tax.

You have largely negated the function of the central government if any state can nullify federal policy. We would be back to the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation which is the reason the Constitution was written.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Many are questioning whether Texas has the authority to carry out federal functions. I think it is largely for publicity purposes to put pressure on federal officials since I doubt law enforcement wants to expand their responsibilities and expenses.

The Texas state troopers and reserve units on the border reportedly have little to do and the border patrol complains that they are just in the way.

But it is good politics for Governor Abbot.

no they aren't.

obviously we can control our own state.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I doubt the founders believed that since the purpose of the constitutional convention was to allow more direct central control over the citizens in the form of taxes, raising an army, coining money, regulating commerce.

control over citizens in the form of taxes? what year was the 16th Amendment ratified? and why do you believe that the constitution was written to enact more control over the people when the founders fought for freedom?

Under Washington the Whiskey Rebellion was about local farmers resisting federal authorities seeking to collect the tax.

You have largely negated the function of the central government if any state can nullify federal policy. We would be back to the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation which is the reason the Constitution was written.

wouldn't the center piece of the constitutional power of the federal government then be 'only those prescribed powers'???? immigration is most certainly within the constitutional power of the feds, but gun laws would not be, if they weren't perverting and torturing the hell out of the commerce clause. especially given that the 2nd is amending the constitution, altering the commerce powers?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Many are questioning whether Texas has the authority to carry out federal functions. I think it is largely for publicity purposes to put pressure on federal officials since I doubt law enforcement wants to expand their responsibilities and expenses.

The Texas state troopers and reserve units on the border reportedly have little to do and the border patrol complains that they are just in the way.

But it is good politics for Governor Abbot.

well, here's a good question about this. Are states allowed to defend themselves against foreign invaders if the feds are not doing it?

 

[Flash]

no they aren't.

obviously we can control our own state.

What purpose are they serving? Talk to some of the national guard on the border. They are bored out of their minds. I'm not sure the state has the power to deport people, but it should be an interesting legal battle.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

I'm not sure the state has the power to deport people

texas cops do now.

 

[Flash]

control over citizens in the form of taxes? what year was the 16th Amendment ratified? and why do you believe that the constitution was written to enact more control over the people when the founders fought for freedom?

Under the Articles the central government could ask the states for taxes and men for the army, but could not depend on their compliance resulting in no revenue or military. Each state coined its own money and made its own trade laws resulting in 13 separate sets of laws greatly restricting commerce between the states. The central government was too weak to work effectively.

The constitutional convention was called to improve the Articles by giving the central government more power to raise revenue directly from the population, recruit a military directly from the population, give itself the power to coin money and regulate interstate commerce.

It certainly added many provisions to limit the power of the central government but the overall purpose was to increase its power.

wouldn't the center piece of the constitutional power of the federal government then be 'only those prescribed powers'???? immigration is most certainly within the constitutional power of the feds, but gun laws would not be, if they weren't perverting and torturing the hell out of the commerce clause. especially given that the 2nd is amending the constitution, altering the commerce powers?

The Constitution gives the central government the power to control naturalization (citizenship) but contains no specific provisions for regulating immigration. It is one of those powers not listed but accepted by conservatives who otherwise don't like expanded unlisted federal power.

How did the 2nd alter the commerce power?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Under the Articles the central government could ask the states for taxes and men for the army, but could not depend on their compliance resulting in no revenue or military. Each state coined its own money and made its own trade laws resulting in 13 separate sets of laws greatly restricting commerce between the states. The central government was too weak to work effectively.

The constitutional convention was called to improve the Articles by giving the central government more power to raise revenue directly from the population, recruit a military directly from the population, give itself the power to coin money and regulate interstate commerce.

It certainly added many provisions to limit the power of the central government but the overall purpose was to increase its power.

the federal government didn't get taxes directly from the population until the 16th.

The Constitution gives the central government the power to control naturalization (citizenship) but contains no specific provisions for regulating immigration. It is one of those powers not listed but accepted by conservatives who otherwise don't like expanded unlisted federal power.

How did the 2nd alter the commerce power?

it specifically tells the federal government that they have no power over the arms of the people. There are some questions about this during ratification, of course, with some saying that the 2nd wasn't needed because the Constitution doesn't give the new central government any power over firearms..........but i've already proven that they didn't need to have that to usurp that power. Even with 'shall not be infringed', they still usurp power over the arms of the people

 

[Flash]

the federal government didn't get taxes directly from the population until the 16th.

The government relied on tariffs and excise taxes which are paid directly by the importers/consumers.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The government relied on tariffs and excise taxes which are paid directly by the importers/consumers.

so the taxes were paid, not directly by all the citizens, but via the business people and sales taxes.

 

[Into the Night]

The 1994 assault weapons ban existed for ten years and was never successfully challenged in court. It was simply allowed to lapse by a Republican congress.

There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon', therefore there is no ban on such a mythical thing. It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon.

High capacity ammunition mags are battlefield innovations intended to inflict maximum casualties on the enemy.

No. TRAINING is intended to inflict maximum casualties on the enemy. It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any gun.

There is no realistic situation where your life is going to depend on having a loaded 30 round magazine,

Paradox. There obviously is, since the Army makes use of such weapons.

and if you need 30 rounds to shoot at a deer you shouldn't even be hunting.

You don't get to decide what the purpose of a gun is.

You should be practicing your aim at the target range.

People do. They become pretty good shots too. Even the Army, with it's 30 or even higher round magazines, practices at the range.

It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any gun. NO justification is required to own or bear any gun.

 

[Into the Night]

the Constitution was written by we the people. It is pure idiocy to believe that the framers would give the government the power to define their own limits and restrictions. The courts do not have power to define and redefine those limits.

The bulk of the Constitution was written by James Madison. Pieces were added by others, including ideas from Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, etc.
It was ordained into authority by the thirteen colonies, making them the first thirteen States of the United States.
Each colony put it to the vote of the people on whether to accept and ordain the Constitution to authority.

Each territory that joined thereafter usually put it to a vote of the people on whether to join and become a State, and Congress approves the application.

Each amendment of the Constitution can only be added by the States. In practically every case, each State will put the amendment to the people of that State for a vote.

The people did not write the Constitution, but they ordain it to authority through their State governments.

No court has any authority to interpret or change the Constitution. That authority only exists with the States. The Dim doesn't recognize this.

 

[Into the Night]

and a first year law student learns that the 2nd amendment did not apply to the states until incorporation

back to the trailer park with the retard named into the night

You don't get to speak for all first year law students. Omniscience fallacy.

The Constitution is not written by a college course. False authority fallacy. The 2nd amendment has always applied to the States.

It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any gun.

 

[Into the Night]

blablabla goes the retard

anyone ever wonder what the moron that screams he is an American and he knows his rights looks like

this tard is it

No matter how you insult, you cannot change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

We’ll match the idiocy of your post, it is definitely constitutional to ban or limit any gun

NEXT

LIF. Grow up.
It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any gun.

 

[Into the Night]

I disagree.

The Founding Fathers simply did not contemplate a Captured Supreme Court and Captured GOP by the gun lobby.

There is nothing wrong with a 'Right to Bear Arms' and any reasonable person would say 'that DOES NOT prevent the government restricting what those arms are'.

And in fact we do limit what those arms are in many areas outside guns. The SC basically ruling guns only can have no real restrictions, is simply illogical if they allow (and they do) the restriction of other arms.

It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon.
No court has authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

“smarts” whole “logic” is derived from the simple phrase of Locke that Jefferson accented, that the people have the right to revolution, or rather, the NRA’s framing of that thought in talking points that they/“smart” regurgitates.

You’d have to be living in a permanent stage of paranoia, which we see he is from his questioning of strangers he sees in church and stores, to fear some tyrannical Government that is all ready and prepared to sweep in and move him to some concentration camp. Most Americans are more fearful of the danger of some random stranger who has easy access to just about any weapon he wants shooting them in a theater, bowling alley, school, mall, little league game, church, spa, restaurant, spa, etc

Shoot back.

 

[Into the Night]

If one really wants to know the intention of the founders, it’s easy to find. In libraries and on line. Starting with the AofC.

Articles of Confederation in Article 6 Reads:

“Every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores … a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.”

There was opposition by many of having to store their weapons for use in the militia in a public store instead at their homes. This is the primary reason to “keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” was added in Amendment 2. But they also kept a “well regulated militia” after removing “well disciplined.”

The first draft on June 8, 1789 by James Madison read, “The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

I highlighted the conscientious objector clause because that puts it all in perspective. The right was intended for MILITARY PURPOSES ONLY.

There were other wording changes, mostly by southern states who were concerned how it would effect blacks having guns as well as the slavery patrols, their version of militias. That’s probably why the conscientious objector clause was removed.

https://www.dailycommercial.com/new...amendment-referred-to-militia?template=ampart

You don't get to speak for the dead. The Articles of Confederation is not the Constitution of the United States. A militia is not required for a person to own or bear any weapon.

 

[Into the Night]

Bought what is undeniable fact and clear is that American homes, become FAR LESS safe when a person brings a gun in to the home, thiking they are trying to protect their families.


There are very few families who genuinely need a gun to counter the type of threat you fear, and FAR MORE who, if they actually CARE about their family should recognize the threat they are exposing them to.


But many people are not reality based so they care about their perception, over facts.

Irrelevant. Psychoquackery. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.