- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Which State Secedes First?
Posted on 4/22/21 at 1:13 pm to RLDSC FAN
Posted on 4/22/21 at 1:13 pm to RLDSC FAN
It won't work. Ever. Secession is illegal under the Constitution. See Texas v. White. Secession is fantasy. These facts still don't stop persons from making idiotic arguments that states attempting to secede would somehow be able to do so.
4
Posted on 4/22/21 at 1:17 pm to Blackie LeBlanc
quote:Oh, now do one about red flag laws and other forms of gun control.
Secession is illegal under the Constitution
Posted on 4/22/21 at 1:18 pm to Blackie LeBlanc
quote:
It won't work. Ever. Secession is illegal under the Constitution. See Texas v. White. Secession is fantasy. These facts still don't stop persons from making idiotic arguments that states attempting to secede would somehow be able to do so.
So is illegal immigration...There are laws and there are laws that aren't enforced.
Posted on 4/22/21 at 1:22 pm to Blackie LeBlanc
I assume it would look like what happened in Ukraine, when the Donbas broke off. The Party of Regions didn’t declare independence, and you didn’t see local politicians leading the charge. It started with local communities forming citizen milita. They were largely older men, with at least some military training.
Posted on 4/22/21 at 1:29 pm to Abraham H Parnassis
Why do you erroneously believe that laws addressing gun control are unconstitutional?
Posted on 4/22/21 at 1:30 pm to Blackie LeBlanc
quote:What's your definition of "shall not be infringed"?
Why do you erroneously believe that laws addressing gun control are unconstitutional?
Posted on 4/22/21 at 1:38 pm to Jake88
quote:
Did it stop?
Most of us didn’t listen to begin with, but yes, it ultimately didn’t hold up. The push for the ban was based on the volatility of Dicamba once a certain temperature is reached, which makes it more prone to harming more sensitive plants and crops via wind drift. Regardless, this was a court that has liberal ideals guiding their logic, and ultimately, they wanted to see modern farming collapse. It’s really no secret out here.
This post was edited on 4/22/21 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 4/22/21 at 1:45 pm to MidMoAg
quote:
Probably an injunction stopped it because non GMO soybeans were being damaged by spraying dicamba on nearby fields. Lawsuits followed. Ag departments fielded complaints and it goes to court to avoid settling it with guns.
It’s a really fascinating study being conducted by Missouri. They’re finding a naturally-resistant trait in soybeans. The bigger problem we faced was wind drift on corn.
Posted on 4/22/21 at 1:45 pm to Blackie LeBlanc
The founders wanted to put firearms in the hands of the every adult male.
They believed widespread gun ownership, citizens owning weapons of war, was good for society and would provide the people with the best defense against both foreign and domestic threats - including government tyranny.
It also avoided the dangers of a standing army, which was a prime worry.
Gun control, what we have now, would have been an anathema to them.
They believed widespread gun ownership, citizens owning weapons of war, was good for society and would provide the people with the best defense against both foreign and domestic threats - including government tyranny.
It also avoided the dangers of a standing army, which was a prime worry.
Gun control, what we have now, would have been an anathema to them.
This post was edited on 4/22/21 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 4/23/21 at 11:16 am to Abraham H Parnassis
The definition of what "shall not be infringed" means is determined by SCOTUS and therefore any position that I may hold is irrelevant. But, my definition of "shall not be infringed" is dependent on the context to the surrounding words. For the 2nd Amendment I contend that means that governmental actors may not take actions that unduly restrict a right. I, like many legal scholars, including many federal courts and SCOTUS decisions, do not read that text of the amendment as an absolute statement of fact. This is evidenced by the fact that we have long had national firearm laws that were/are constitutional. I generally agree with the majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller - that there is an individual right to firearms in one's home. That is the holding there. The court was clear there in the decision that the government is not precluded from regulating firearms. Justice Scalia, in Heller; "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Posted on 4/23/21 at 11:20 am to Lima Whiskey
"Gun control, what we have now, would have been an anathema to them".
This is really immaterial to the current situation. We are not bound by previous positions that may have been held more than two centuries ago.
This is really immaterial to the current situation. We are not bound by previous positions that may have been held more than two centuries ago.
Posted on 4/23/21 at 11:28 am to Blackie LeBlanc
quote:
Secession is illegal under the Constitution
What would be the legal penalty be for the 125MM people that were complicit in allowing such a crime to be committed by the States in which they reside?
Death?, Life in prison? Please tell.
This post was edited on 4/23/21 at 11:31 am
Posted on 4/23/21 at 11:36 am to Blackie LeBlanc
quote:
This is really immaterial to the current situation. We are not bound by previous positions that may have been held more than two centuries ago.
Nothing has changed for us.
Just the evil we face now. That’s different.
quote:
may have been held
That’s slick. Are you always this weasely?
This post was edited on 4/23/21 at 11:42 am
Posted on 4/23/21 at 10:59 pm to keks tadpole
Not sure why you would think that ordinary citizens should be charged. Why wouldn't it be handled the same way as following the Civil War? Were ordinary farmers, or shop owners charged for the actions by the states then?
Posted on 4/23/21 at 11:21 pm to Lima Whiskey
This is just a general statement concerning the varying positions of the state delegates and that not everyone held the same positions.Those disparate positions between the states that had to be ironed out prior to ratification. That's all that I implied in that statement. Seems a bit clumsy reading back over it now, but, alas.
Posted on 4/23/21 at 11:35 pm to CU_Tigers4life
None
Posted on 4/23/21 at 11:53 pm to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
It's going to happen.
It is not. Politicians will grand stand about it but they will never actually see it through. Democrats would tear them apart.
I would bet money on it if there is a reputable place to make such wagers.
Posted on 4/24/21 at 12:06 am to CU_Tigers4life
If the government of TX was not run by the cities, I would say TX. But as it is, TX government is run by the cities of Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin. Until we can purge these Democratic strongholds, nothing can be accomplished
Posted on 4/24/21 at 12:09 am to CU_Tigers4life
Texas.
Posted on 4/24/21 at 12:12 am to CU_Tigers4life
All we have to do is stop paying taxes. Then resist when they try to force the issue.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News