MAGAThread XIV: All persons born or naturalized ...

[Valrifell]

Only if you entirely forget about the "or to the people" bit of it.

That's the important part. I'm not sure what your point was.

So we need SCOTUS to clear up confusion when the States try to restrain the freedom of their constituents.

Good talk.

[Northern Davincia]

That's the important part. I'm not sure what your point was.

So we need SCOTUS to clear up confusion when the States try to restrain the freedom of their constituents.

Good talk.

Yes. It also means that the federal government shouldn't try to restrain the freedom of states.

[Salandriagado]

Only if you entirely forget about the "or to the people" bit of it.

That's the important part. I'm not sure what your point was.

The point is that all of these issues are about where people's rights conflict with "rights" claimed by states, and thus the 10th amendment says precisely nothing about them.

[Salandriagado]

So we need SCOTUS to clear up confusion when the States try to restrain the freedom of their constituents.

Good talk.

Yes. It also means that the federal government shouldn't try to restrain the freedom of states.

No. No it doesn't. It means that anything the Federal Government isn't empowered to do is either reserved to the people, or to the states. The Federal Government is entirely within its rights to step in and prevent the states from violating the rights of the people.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So we need SCOTUS to clear up confusion when the States try to restrain the freedom of their constituents.

Good talk.

Yes. It also means that the federal government shouldn't try to restrain the freedom of states.

Yeah, but what is and isn’t within the scope of the 10th amendment is decided by an interpretation of the 14th, among others, and the constitution does not indicate that, when in doubt, the States get a final say. SCOTUS clears up confusion, not the 10th.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

And that side is just being supremely nitpicky since not everything requires an amendment and the constitution doesn’t have secret asterisks saying “this section doesn’t mean what it says it means”. Homosexuality, for example, is constitutionally protected since it’s explicitly stated that citizens of the United States can’t be denied rights under the law that everyone else has (equal protection is literally just that) and criminalization of homosexuality would literally be denying rights that everyone else has, and IIRC gay Americans are still citizens of the United States and therefore can’t be denied rights.

The 10th Amendment clears it up nicely.

The 10th amendment doesn’t have anything to do with equal rights of citizens. The 10th amendment is generally a bane to equal rights of citizens.

[Northern Davincia]

Yes. It also means that the federal government shouldn't try to restrain the freedom of states.

No. No it doesn't. It means that anything the Federal Government isn't empowered to do is either reserved to the people, or to the states. The Federal Government is entirely within its rights to step in and prevent the states from violating the rights of the people.

As it should when states implement strict gun control.

The 10th Amendment clears it up nicely.

The 10th amendment doesn’t have anything to do with equal rights of citizens. The 10th amendment is generally a bane to equal rights of citizens.

It is a bane to no one with actual respect for federalism.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

The 10th amendment doesn’t have anything to do with equal rights of citizens. The 10th amendment is generally a bane to equal rights of citizens.

It is a bane to no one with actual respect for federalism.

Only if you ignore the numerous attempts by states to use the 10th amendment to violate every amendment that begins with or contains the phrases “No State shall...” and “shall not be denied or abridged... by any state”.

[Cannot think of a name]

Stone associate Corsi in plea negotiations with Mueller

Awful lot of plea deals for a fishing expedition WITCH HUNT.

So is Roger Stone going to be the Scooter Libby of this whole thing?

[Ifreann]

While we're on the subject:

Trump takes bid to restrict transgender troops to Supreme Court

So what is the constitutional basis for barring transgender individuals from military service?

They's icky.

[Mattopilos II]

While we're on the subject:

Trump takes bid to restrict transgender troops to Supreme Court

So what is the constitutional basis for barring transgender individuals from military service?

They's icky.

The reply people had to transgender individuals to reach the above bid.

[Duhon]

Word on the vine says Trump's pissed at Mnuchin for urging him to appoint Jerome Powell as Fed Reserve chair, though to be fair to someone who doesn't deserve it, he's not only denying it, he's attacking the media for not asking him about it.

[Myrensis]

Alright! That's good to know. Things like this prove that you don't mindlessly accept everything Trump does.


No, it also depends on what legal school you belong to, and the laws on the books, and basic logic. If you want to criticise a ruling, it is only fair that you read it first.

There is no basic logic. For one side, the Constitution can change to support homosexuality, AIDS and abortion and they can force that, rape the states with it. For the other side, such changes require amendment This is a raw political struggle, simple as is.

So you agree that the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets and cannons? Because if they had meant it to apply to any and all future developments in firearms technology they would obviously have explicitly mentioned that. Stop trying to warp the Constitution to say things it manifestly doesn't Mardla!

[Telconi]

There is no basic logic. For one side, the Constitution can change to support homosexuality, AIDS and abortion and they can force that, rape the states with it. For the other side, such changes require amendment This is a raw political struggle, simple as is.

So you agree that the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets and cannons? Because if they had meant it to apply to any and all future developments in firearms technology they would obviously have explicitly mentioned that. Stop trying to warp the Constitution to say things it manifestly doesn't Mardla!

So you agree that the Second Amendment applies to any variety of "arm" up to and including nuclear arms? Because if they had meant it to only apply to a specific subset of arms they would obviously have explicitly mentioned that. Stop trying to warp the Constitution to say things it manifestly doesn't Myrensis.

See, this nonsense goes both ways.

[Tobleste]

Burn.

It's not surprising. [b]Republicans don't actually care about the members of the military. They use them as tools to punish people they don't like (I.e. foreigners) so they want them well funded but that's it. [/b]They weren't bothered that Trump dodged the draft and has mocked veterans constantly. They only pretend to care when they want an excuse to dismiss protesting black Americans but that stems from their racism, not their respect for the military.

Prove this.

Their words and actions. You know, the little things.

[Tobleste]

If Republicans actually gave a fuck about them, they wouldn't keep cutting veterans support arrangements.

It seems to be a bipartisan thing to beat down veterans.

Debatable but using them as props to dismiss civil rights protesters is a republican monopoly.

[Kowani]

So you agree that the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets and cannons? Because if they had meant it to apply to any and all future developments in firearms technology they would obviously have explicitly mentioned that. Stop trying to warp the Constitution to say things it manifestly doesn't Mardla!

So you agree that the Second Amendment applies to any variety of "arm" up to and including nuclear arms? Because if they had meant it to only apply to a specific subset of arms they would obviously have explicitly mentioned that. Stop trying to warp the Constitution to say things it manifestly doesn't Myrensis.

See, this nonsense goes both ways.

Somehow, I doubt the people who restricted the vote to white, landowning men would have wanted that kind of power to be so widespread...

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

For the second straight year as president, President Donald Trump chose not to visit American service members deployed around the world on Thanksgiving and instead spoke to them via teleconference from his private, for-profit country club in Palm Beach, Florida.

The president still has not visited service members in combat zones, 22 months into his term. President Barack Obama visited Iraq three months into his first term.

“Not surprised. He’s been avoiding them since the mid-’60s,” said Will Fischer, an Iraq War veteran with the liberal group VoteVets, referring to Trump’s avoidance of service during the Vietnam War.

An hero.

I doubt Obama ever visited a combat zone.

What has that to do with Trump and his disrespect for his countrys heroes?

[Vassenor]

I doubt Obama ever visited a combat zone.

What has that to do with Trump and his disrespect for his countrys heroes?

Because it means we're not allowed to Criticise Trump for something because reasons.

[Tobleste]

What has that to do with Trump and his disrespect for his countrys heroes?

Because it means we're not allowed to Criticise Trump for something because reasons.

But has Trump not failed to visit all soldiers abroad rather than just those in combat zones?

[Sane Outcasts]

What has that to do with Trump and his disrespect for his countrys heroes?

Because it means we're not allowed to Criticise Trump for something because reasons.

It would also be completely wrong because Obama visited troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Korean DMZ.

The only way Trump is going to a combat zone is if he builds a golf course in one.

[Petrasylvania]

Because it means we're not allowed to Criticise Trump for something because reasons.

It would also be completely wrong because Obama visited troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Korean DMZ.

The only way Trump is going to a combat zone is if he builds a golf course in one.

Or a bunch of women in camo bikinis and lingerie were all gathered there, because dating was his personal Vietnam.

[Tobleste]

Because it means we're not allowed to Criticise Trump for something because reasons.

It would also be completely wrong because Obama visited troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Korean DMZ.

The only way Trump is going to a combat zone is if he builds a golf course in one.

Or he holds a rally in California without security.

[Sane Outcasts]

It would also be completely wrong because Obama visited troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Korean DMZ.

The only way Trump is going to a combat zone is if he builds a golf course in one.

Or he holds a rally in California without security.

Fun fact, Trump has never had a rally in California, not even for the midterms.

[Communist Xomaniax]

[Are you suggesting that an actual conspiracy is going on?
Luckily for you, a truly free market also gives employers the chance to be tolerant.

"It let some of them be nice" doesn't cancel out that it let vastly more folk be nasty, and did so for a long time. I'm not sure changing the rules to feed into people's worst impulses is a good thing.