Posted on 09/06/2015 7:50:57 AM PDT by impimp
It will even educate on the fallacy of "separation of Church and State" and the meaning of the 10th.
All anyone need to do, is read the clear text of the Tenth Amendment.
Your post is full of FAIL in so many ways I cannot begin to count them.
Indeed, when courts can change the meaning of words like they did with homo marriage, you cannot have a society that is based on contract law.
If word definitions can be change, how can any contract have meaning or legal weight?
This decision will divide this country like never before, besides Roe V Wade is probably the worst decision in my life time (Well O care too)
We have just scratched the surface of unintended consequences.
I gave up on impy, he’s a waste of time.
I was posting to that other guy, maybe he is open to learning more.
Maybe it would be best to have neither state militias or a National Guard. But if we are going to have one or another and people really care about the tenth amendment, then it would only make sense to have state militias rather than a National Guard.
Hey Laz, did you read Levin’s “Men in Black?”
Great read if you haven’t.
I shouldn't be surprised at this closeted-liberal.
Anyone who selectively ignore clauses in the Tenth Amendment, will definitely selectively ignore clear refutations on his thread.
I wasn’t planning on wading into this pillow fight because, like the USMA pillow fight, it was starting to get vicious. But, I think that each and every one of you have mis-read the Constitution. The document only means what 5 of 9 black robed justices says that it means, unless each and every one of you is willing to shed some blood to change their ruling. We have the 2nd Amendment to preserve our personal arms to remind those who govern to do so wisely. But the SC could change that with the change of one black robe. At one time, burning the American flag would have gotten you a trip to jail. Now it is covered under the 1st Amendment. At one time, euthanizing your unborn child got you and at least one other a trip to jail for murder. Now it’s an un-enumerated right. You can continue to “discuss” the meaning of the Constitution and the BOR, but remember that the SCOTUS will continue determine the meaning, like it or not.
No, but I saw the movie. Will Smith was hilarious!
Ah yes, the true meaning of "well regulated" not being held up.
So typical of our corrupt government.
A quick google brought up this link which has some excellent information on each state and their state constitutional legal quotes on their state sponsored Christian religion. It also has a good discussion on the incorporation clause and its affect on the states sponsored religion.
Great details
http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69
Including.
“Most instances of state-supported religion were removed before 1850, and the remaining requirements became null and void after the passing of the 14th Amendment on July 28, 1868. New Hampshire and North Carolina removed the nullified religious references from their state constitutions in 1875 and 1877 respectively.”
Nah.
The document means what the clear text says and the Founders intended.
The practical application, however, seems to be guided by SCOTUS, who fails to rule on the clear text correctly from time to time.
LOL...always the comedian eh? LMAO, get the book, you'll love it. Very educational and an easy read.
According to the Presser decision (chronically misapplied by the federral courts), states cannot.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [Illinois parade permit laws] do not have this effect.
” unless each and every one of you is willing to shed some blood to change their ruling. “
Who says people aren’t? They haven’t bought hundreds of millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammo just to feel tough; they are expecting to need to use it.
Yup.
Only way to stay sane these days. :)
Don’t mean to imply that you need to read it, just that it is a good read, very enjoyable.
You obviously know your stuff.
What do you think the Heller decision said. I wonder if you really know what it did say.
I'll drink to that!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.