IT'S HAPPENING!!!
- Home
- Board: /pol/ - Politically Incorrect
- Reading: IT'S HAPPENING!!!
https://archive.is/vvBkf
>Texas Governor Greg Abbot is calling for a Constitutional Convention of the States to bring Washington politicians back in line with the rule of law, and the spirit of the Constitution.
>According to a press release, Governor Abbott is proposing 9 additional amendments to the Constitution:
>Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
>Require Congress to balance its budget.
>Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
>Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
>Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
>Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
>Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
>>80309767
>Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bound
ah yesss
Article 5
More power to the states. Less to the fed. End the corruption, reclaim their power.
>>80309767
I feel like this could have unintended consequences somehow and would require some refinement to address that but I support it in principle, for sure, especially the being able to overrule the supreme court part, and the states can overrule a federal law part with 2/3ds.
>>80309767
It's a trojan. If they can successfully get a Constitutional Convention convened, 2A repeal will be proposed. Then there will be more happenings to scare people into supporting repeal.
>>80309767
These actually seem breddy gud
>>80310658
It doesn't matter. Super Majority of the states have to agree before the convention on what to vote. Rogue convention is not possible.
>>80309767
>>Require Congress to balance its budget.
How to destroy an entire country in one amendment, the amendment.
>>Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
Too bad virtually everything somehow involves interstate commerce.
>>80309767
Sounds sweet
>>80309767
>all that bullshit about federal agencies
Sounds like a great way to destroy the economy. American businesses benefit greatly from administrative agencies. Just because you are too stupid to understand how they work does not mean that they are bad,
>>80310501
We tried that and we ended up fighting a war over it because the south wanted to ruin northern industry over muh cotton. Never again.
>>80310567
They already can override the supreme court, it's called a constitutional amendment. It already requires 2/3rds of states.
That's why slavery isn't a thing anymore. Supreme Court said it was fine.
>>80309767
What the fuck is the point? The government doesn't give a shit about what is written in the Constitution. Just shit on it and throw it out with the trash where it belongs.
>>80311278
What's the matter with balancing the budget? It doesn't require eliminating the national debt.
>>80311278
Completely repeal the interstate commerce clause. It didn't always exist you know
Just secede already you complete morons
>>80311330
>the south wanted to ruin northern industry over muh cotton
Fucking lol what. I think you mean
>the north wanted to ruin the southern economy because muh niggers
>>80311609
>the civil war was about slavery
Please educate yourself.
>>80311330
Based
>>80310658
That's fucking stupid, anon.
>>80309767
I didn't read much of this but this is what I've been wanting for years
Fuck the fed, give the states more rights. That's why its the United STATES of America, not a homogenous blob of shit. Don't like a state's laws? Welcome to move
>>80311505
Because if the country goes into a recession, then that means there is less tax money, and a balanced budget amendment means we need to then cut spending during a recession.
Basically, imagine if another financial crisis happened, and the government had to go "Sorry guys, we ran out of money. We need to cut your unemployment and social security benefits because too many people lost their job"
It turns a minor recession into the worst depression of all time.
>>80311278
>How to destroy an entire country in one amendment, the amendment.
Bullshit.
There is ZERO need to overspend in times of peace. Period.
>>80309767
Holy shit, based Texas. States rights may come back.
my deja vu is peaking right now over the last five minutes
>>Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
This one is interesting. I thought this was suppose to already be a thing. What happened?
this is the oldest news http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/21829
>>80310501
Ensure the race to the bottom by not having one law for all...
Take a civics class....Just one....
>>80309767
Nullification Crisis Two: Electric Boogaloo?
>We will never have a constitution as good as the American one
Fuck I'm ready to fucking end my existence at this point
>They were right about everything.
>>80312133
you forgot Jefferson
>>80311278
>Too bad virtually everything somehow involves interstate commerce.
Only through a ridiculous expanded view that by the same logic could make everything international commerce. Interstate commerce should be limited to the exchange of individual products across state lines not the economic consequences of the sale of a product or it's materials of manufacture.
>>80309767
and so #texit begins
>>80311755
>federal unemployment benefits
>federal social security benefits
>>80309767
I read this as patch notes and was slightly upset when I realized it would never go live.
NEED STICKY
WEW
>>80312316
Too bad. That's how it has to be. Federal regulation is preferable to state regulation. States can be easily swayed by interest groups and local politics, which in turn can result in a regulatory atmosphere that is extremely hostile to business interests.
>>80310658
THAT ISN'T HOW THE CONVENTION WORKS YOU FUCKING IGNORANT CHILD
>uphold the constitution
>propose amendments
FUCKING WHICH IS IT?
tl;dr
FUCK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
FUCKING BLOATED, CORRUPT, PIECES OF SHIT
None of shit is going to happen.
Kek sees all
>>80312669
Even if it did, the Supreme Court would make it irrelevant.
>>80312756
congress has the power to dismiss any court in the country
>Localize the government.
>Localize money system. TexCoin.
>Still seamlessly work together with other states with technology.
>????
>PROFIT
1488
STOP GIVING OUR MONEY TO WORTHLESS KIKES WHO LITERALLY ARE TRING TO EXTERMINATE AND REPLACE THE WHITE MAN WITH 3RD WORLD NIGGERS ARABS AND BEANERS
Spread this around, this is good news that could gain a lot of traction.
Stopped reading right there.
That just tells me he is not serious - it is all for show.
>>80309767
I want to prohibit any slander or misinformation on the first ten amendments, to include the disbarment of lawyers or law professors who push along the lines of Obama, Kerkove or that one legal scholar who is wrongly respected but who attacks the Constitution whenever he can, and was recently quoted here.
>>80312822
But they never do. Funny how that works...
>>80312822
>Congress
>power
ha, good luck getting them to use any of it
>>80309767
I don't like the seven justice super majority one.
If a law is found unconstitutional, whether it was democratically enacted or not, it's still unconstitutional and therefore void.
Same with the 2/3 state majority. Constitution says the SCOTUS has all judicial power.
And requiring congress to have a balanced budget wont ever get passed.
The rest sound great though
>>80312939
>>80312983
Yeah you cucks are right we should probably never ask them to do that for us then because they didn't do it yet without us asking
>>80311330
Lmao fucking carpet baggers always blame the south
>>80312542
Are you just picking words using magnets?
Your argument for federal over state regulation is that there is no such thing as federal lobbyists writing their own legislation?
>>80312931
The Constitution is not a set of statutory laws. If you want to live under an anal government like that, move to France.
>>80312542
>States can be easily swayed by interest groups and local politics, which in turn can result in a regulatory atmosphere that is extremely hostile to business interests.
That already happens anyway. It's entirely arbitrary when interstate commerce is applied.
>>80312542
Cut this shit out.
Do you see the bullshit that's going on in your precious federal government? States wear a halo after the shit the feds openly admit to on national media.
You're an ass if you believe bigger government with more power is going to be better.
>constitutional crisis
>FBI anon was right all along
god damn it
>>80312931
Do we finally get to stop people who spread misinformation that the second amendment is meant to allow people to fight the government?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114
It was about protecting slavery and preventing the feds from making slave catching militias illegal.
I am amazed how many people fall for the "last resort against tyranny" meme. Treason is the only crime in the constitution, why would they go and tell you to commit treason?
>>80313455
>why would they go and tell you to commit treason?
Because it's not treason if the government is illegitimate due to it's non-compliance with the constitution. Jefferson was even more balls to the wall and thought it was fine to stage an occasional rebellion if you were pissed the government wasn't listening to you well enough.
>>80313833
>Jefferson was even more balls to the wall and thought it was fine to stage an occasional rebellion if you were pissed the government wasn't listening to you well enough.
He was also against slavery but had slaves. Jefferson was the worst founder and only morons pretend otherwise.
>>80311330
Oh yeah, American businesses fucking LOVE spending millions of dollars to comply with bullshit like EPA, WSA, HHS... have you ever worked in the private sector you retard?
>>80312620
It's okay, liberals don't understand the difference either
What a great set of amendments. They totally won't cripple the federal government and render the US a dead political entity. You should give them a common name. Something like "Articles of Confederation" or something. :^)
>>80311755
go back /r/eddit, the government shouldnt be spending like that and on those specific things
>>80313955
You have to go back.
>>80311330
If your economy is dependent on shit agencies that waste 90% of their funds on shit then you dont have an economy
>>80313455
Fuck you
If there's anything to take from this, it's that Texas doesn't want to be cucked by the left agenda that's unfortunately claiming a lot of the northern states. With how more government regulated laws are becoming, this was only a matter of time.
>>80314115
>any protection of states = articles of confederation
States have been forced to crawl through the mud, and were supposed to be protected from what the Government is doing now. This is merely protection against a totalitarian central Government.
Fucking shills.
>>80313955
That wasn't at all related to the intent of the second amendment but thanks for taking this opportunity to take a stab at Jefferson.
>>80309767
>Calling a constitutional convention during a Democrat administration
>>80311755
>We need to cut your benefits
> cut your federal benefits
>cut federal benefits
Anyone else like to point out the problem here? I can't find it.
>>80311890
Democracy
>>80309767
>not one stipulation addressing term limits or pay
Career politicians breed corruption. No one should have "politician" as their longest held job.
>>80314424
States are no longer a political independent entity. States obey the Federal government and act as a subdivision of it. Don't like it? Then take it up with Lincoln, he's the one who ended any and all dispute on the issue.
There is no Union of States, there is only the United States.
>>80314876
You either have elected politicians or you have unelected patrons and lobbyists who basically run things. So unless you want Soros to have even more say in how things are run I think you should just accept the way things are.
>>80309767
>>Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
No.
>>Require Congress to balance its budget.
Dumb.
>>Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
>>Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
Need more detail.
>>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
No.
>>Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
Stop trying to mess with the supreme court.
>>Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
Yes.
>>Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
Absolutely.
>>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
Never.
>>80313349
Who?
>>80309767
Too bad it has no chance
>>80310658
>>80311278
>>80311330
>>80311455
>>80311956
>>80312876
>>80313955
jesus christ some actually not retarded sarah palin tier americans exist
usually you guys just froth at the mouth with joy anytime a politician says 'constitution'
>>80311330
NOT
>>80309767
This is what the civil war was fought over. The feds won and will never allow such things to happen
>>80315133
Most politicians only vote a certain way because if they don't it kills their career. Remove the ability for it to be a career and you remove the fear of voting for the right thing from representatives. Soros can't do shit to people if he can only fuck with 4/6/8 years of their lives at most. Corruption shows up when someone's livelihood is at stake.
>>80309767
States Rights time? ebin
>>80310658
110% correct, dont let the jew shills tell you otherwise
>Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State
Except they already cannot do this, nor do they.
>Require Congress to balance its budget.
This is retarded. The US makes a fuck ton of money on the sale of its debt. It looks bad on paper, but inflation wipes it out over time.
>Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
They can't do this. They enforce existing laws.
>Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
Supremacy clause. Gotta repeal that first.
>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Its called amending the Constitution. You don't need another amendment to say you can amend it.
>Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
Fuck no.
>Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
This does not mean what you think it does. The Federal Government only acts within its given powers, as they are interpreted. If you don't agree with the interpretation, change the constitution. This amendment is on its face useless, and is as stupid as the amendment that gives the states power to amend the constitution on top of their existing amendment power.
>Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
They already have this power.
>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
Again, its called amending the constitution.
Seriously, what is this faggotry?
>>80315175
>t.bootlicker
>>80315686
>Corruption shows up when someone's livelihood is at stake.
They still have incentive to vote in a way that's favorable to potential future employers. You could basically spend 4 years voting in a way that's great for some corporation of your choosing and then leave and get a spot as a VP there in exchange for your years of service to them.
>>80309767
He's trying to stop his people from trying to go for secession
>>80315753
No, America cannot allow this. It will inevitably mean dissolution. The differences will grow tremendously if they reintroduce it. The government doesn't care about anything but maintaining its control.
>>80316507
>t. secessionist scum
>>80314080
Have YOU ever worked for a company that made more than $1 million in revenue? Seriously if it gets too complicated (it hardly ever is) you can pay a lawyer to help you out. It's not that fucking difficult.
No mention of repealing the 16th amendment?
Weak.
>>80316731
>people who want to work within the system against corruption are secessionists
Wow really makes you think
>>80317211
>people who think nuking the system will stop corruption instead of just lead way for another system of corruption
>>80309767
Hes about to have a mysterious heart attack, famalam.
>>80317510
well he was already "mysteriously" crippled so I think he be ready.
>>80317354
>working within the system to prevent corruption is nuking the system
We've got another assblasted bern victim here guys
>>80317646
>passing new non-sense regulation is working within the system
We've got another CruzMissile.
The American legal system is such a clusterfuck mess, how you people even function is a mystery.
>>80317739
>limiting the federal government to the powers that it actually legally has and preventing it from overstepping it's authority is "non-sense"
>>80318155
>wanting to limit the federal government only when you feel you've been wrong but having no introspection to understand other state's misery
>>80318104
>Brit
>whining about the American legal system
Where do you think this shit comes from?
>>80309767
The Texas governor has very weak powers other than his ability to veto, one of the weakest in all 50 states. The Lt. Gov and Speaker of the House have the most power in the state, the governor is mostly a ceremonial job. Abbott is just really good at making noise.
>>80309767
Kek, sounds like all he wants to do is make a complex system an order of magnitude more complex.
>>80318364
A lot of it comes from the French
>>80310658
3/4ths of states need to agree to repealing 2A. Not going to happen
>>80312078
This is actually my greatest fear if the US ever decides to kick us. We're already a decaying shithole, I can't begin to think what would become of us once our borderline retarded population is up to writing a constitution.
It's quite saddening how that very same godly constitution is being destroyed by one of ours with that whole contradictory "living constitution" nonsense. We should be nuked tbqh familia
>>80319127
we won't drop you port man leftists will take care of any one.
>>80311330
Federal agencies are making it too easy for large corporations to profit from high barriers to entry into industries, they make it cost so much to comply with regulations, and the rich get richer, and never have to increase their quality and standards of service.
I know in your bubble of academia you think that no one should get rich who isn't a little university bitch, but understand some of us still have testosterone running through our veins, and want to take risks, work hard, and compete.
You need the safe space though, you can't handle conflict
Abbot is fucking based.
>>80315608
Holy shit a not indoctrinated, I've been politically reassured that socialism works all my life, tier Canadian...Oh, never mind. Must be nice to just have that handicap, of having all the institutions agree with your leftist ideals, and never have to experience conflict.
You need the safe space though, enjoy it.
>>80319781
This anon has it.
Regulations always favor large companies. Only large corporations have the resources to deal with complicated systems of rules for business.
If the federal government can't have laws that supersede state laws, then what would be the point of having a federal government?
>>80309767
>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
>Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
Fucking no. What we need is an amendment that prevents SCOTUS stacking like what has been happening for the last 70 years.
>>80319781
>Federal agencies are making it too easy for large corporations to profit from high barriers to entry into industries, they make it cost so much to comply with regulations, and the rich get richer, and never have to increase their quality and standards of service.
What regulations? Give me an example? I doubt you have even one that is not socially desirable. The government exists to ensure commerce flows efficiently. This is the cornerstone of neoliberal thought. If you don't like it you should get the fuck out.
>>80309767
What a dumb piece of shit
>>80320617
Telecommunications is a fine example. Not only do you need the entry costs for equipment and such, there's shit tons of government fees and FCC necessities that it's simply not worth it for a company to enter it without a LOT of capital and the ability to expand (which is increasingly rare). Each telecomm company today is effectively a regional monopoly.
>>80309767
>>Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
For.
>>Require Congress to balance its budget.
For.
>>Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
For.
>>Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
For.
>>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Against.
>>Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
Against.
>>Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
For.
>>Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
Against.
>>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
Honestly not sure. Lean towards against.
>>80320617
You know why cars all look the same? Federal regulations are so numerous and restrictive that everything ends up looking like an electric razor on wheels.
>>80311860
>in times of peace
Anon, did you know we are fighting a war right now? Have been for the last 15 years.
I really cant believe how fucking stupid the posters in this hellhole are.
T E R M L I M I T S
I
M
G
A
Y
>>80322084
Who's Tim Gay?
>>80320617
The transit authority is a prime example,and the cdl licensing they require for you to operate commercial trucks. Who incurs the cost of that bureaucracy, the people who are engaged in industry, and do you think it makes it more or less desirable for a small business owner to expand into new markets, we pay them to ssue licenses, and it's pure waste.
Not that you would understand, but the people who produce industry for the betterment of society incur these costs.
>The government exists to ensure commerce flows efficiently
What a tell this statement is, that you an insulated Liberal, who has never considered the damage the expansion does to competition in an industry, and the reduction of quality that brings about.
Go back to reading your John Kennith Gailbraith blog, some of us have to be of benefit to society, and not just sit in college banging bongo drums talking about oppression.
You're philosophy s the saddest, and most prevalent reason for our diminished prosperity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Moc7gwMJabM
I'll just cut u off before you go to roads, ya fuckin baby
>>80309767
Repeal the 17th!
>>80322631
repeal the 13th
If we're going to do this we must do it right. Here is one of my ideas. I hope you document yours.
I will post the first few, if there' s an interest I'll post the rest.
>>80322527
>muh small businesses
Who gives a shit? They don't make wealth and in fact a vast majority of them go under within a year. Also don't quote Friedman at me. I'm not a commie liberal. I'm a big believer in markets, just not completely free ones since that inevitably harms business, consumers, and the government.
>>80310658
>2A repeal
No. Any amendment through the convention route requires 3/4 of the states to ratify for the amendment to become part of the Constitution. There is no way whatsoever that shitlibs will be able to get 3/4 of states to ratify a 2A repeal. That's 38 states. No way in hell.
>>80311701
Not citing proof it wasn't because niggers
Prove it wasn't
>>80309767
>my governor is taking steps to limit the federal government
voting for his ass is finally paying off, thanks based abbot.
>>80324190
>the vast majority fail
if you make it easier to start a business, there will be more small businesses, and more successful ones as a result
but I guess we should just give up and worship the corporations existing in the current year instead
>>80312620
>I don't realize that the constitution literally has a process for amendment
>>80324190
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrgckWNgNgE
Here, you need this
>>80314115
>t. country that is ready to split in two at any moment
>>80315175
Look at all those non-arguments
>>80309767
>Require Congress to balance its budget.
>>80309767
>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
Thats it, I should just move to Texas everything they do is just based.
We should just rename America to Texas and have Texas be our federal government
>>80309767
>Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
gee, what could possibly go wrong
>>80311914
this. its 7 months old. there is no happening.
>>80309767
Good idea. Democrats just grow and grow and grow the federal government. Republicans say they want smaller government, but at best, they just grow it less than Democrats. We need power back to the states as it was meant to be.
>>80320617
Thought you'd know since some interior designers need a license to operate. Then again you're probably the mega-fag that put that law into effect. There is so much. You need a license just to wave a flag to direct traffic around a construction site. You need a TWIC card just to get any good labor job and that costs a decent chunk of income for the people who are trying to get into those jobs. Want to be an electrician or wire your own home? Got to follow the NEC even though it's not technically law and pay for their stupid book that costs hundreds that's updated every year. Same for engineering. And there's so much more.
You shouldn't comment on rights if you've never had a job. But here you go Chuck. Now shut the fuck up Chuck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQscE3Xed64
>>80324578
>if you make it easier to start a business, there will be more small businesses, and more successful ones as a result
It's already pretty easy to start a business. All you need is money. Stop making it seem like the government is actively preventing people from setting up companies. If you cannot afford to compete with entrenched companies then you have no business attempting to do so.
>>80324190
>just not completely free ones since that inevitably harms business, consumers, and the government.
Care to elaborate?
>>80325972
>artificially restricting the supply of labor is a bad thing
>implying that people who can't afford a $100 book should be allowed to fuck around with wiring
Yeah we should just let start building shit and messing with wiring in densely populated areas without any sort of certifications or testing. It's not like that could cause any sort of problems that could incur larger costs for the city and its actually successful businesses.
>>80309767
"Millions and millions of men will perish while this is going on and those who survive will envy the dead. The unexpected will follow in every part of the world, anxiety, pain and misery in every country. Have I seen it? The time is getting ever nearer and the abyss is getting wider without hope. The good will perish with the bad, the great with the small, the Heads of the Church with their faithful, and the rulers with their people. There will be death everywhere as a result of the mistakes of the unfeeling and the partisans of Satan, but when those who survive all these happenings are still alive, they will proclaim............."
>>80326058
Only the rich deserve to own their own business, the post.
>>80312756
>I don't understand how constitutional conventions work: the post
SCOTUS can't change the constitution moron. It's job is to interpert, and it can over turn other laws, but the constitution is the document by which they over turn or uphold them.
Please leastn how your own goverment works before your begin to talk about it, and especially before you vote.
>>80326509
>Implies in the same breath you need to protect the health of the community and you should be able to artificially limit the supply of labor
>What is the AMA and the current cost of American healthcare
Yeah, you're retarded. The NEC code book and all code books that are practically law should be free.
This is what needs to happen, the federal government has gone too far off the rails
>>80327173
>It's job is to interpert
and by doing so they can make it mean anything they desire.
it's not a nation of laws. it's a nation of 9 robed lawyers.
>>80327352
learn what de jure and de facto fucking mean
>>80327456
the deception inherent to it is obvious
>>80327352
Which is why, when adding to the constitution, one must take extreme care and consideration in your wording, to prevent confusion misinterpretation or abuse, like the founders did.
Though I will admit that didn't stop hamilton and co. from shilling for broad construction until they basically got the court to say "fuck the tenth amendment". And the commerce clause is abused to hell and back.
>>80311755
>John Maynard Keynes: the post
>>80327656
what does this even mean
So /pol/, what would you change about the constitution.
Hard mode: nothing like "ban all niggers" or "the U
S foriegn policy shall be for ever more: GAS THE KIKES, RACE WAR NOW"
>>80311755
Retards that replied to you post don't understand basic economics. Or they are being sarcastic. It is hard to tell via text.
>>80328090
A large amount of /pol/ users are unironic mises-tards.
>>80309767
>regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state
seems good, but I don't know enough
>balanced budget
would be nice, but won't pass
>prohibit agencies from creating federal law
impossible due the the mere nature of agencies, it would be more apt to remove them or narrowly tailor them, as most operate with barely any guidance from congress
>preempting state law
agencies are extensions of congress, this would basically just stop congress from preempting state law. There are better and more plausible solutions than this
>allow states to override a supreme court decision
kind of an odd measure, but I guess it's the best bandaid you can put on the fact that judges are immune from impeachment now
>require seven justice super majority to nullify law
this is a better solution than the last I think, but 2/3 majority would be better imo
>limit power to the executive....
Hard to do, even people who think they embrace the constitution probably don't understand what this implies. I'm all for it, but it will never pass
>allow a state to override a law or regulation
shitty bandaid for the real problem. The fact that The states don't elect senators anymore. That is what should be restored
neverhappening/10
this country is fucked and amendments aren't going to happen, nor would you want them to. The people writing them today are not as smart and would fuck it up royally
the newer you get with amendments the more full of holes they are
>>80328179
A large amount of /pol/ thinks the US was supposed to be a states-first government that the politicians have warped despite the existence of the federalist papers.
A large amount of /pol/ also thinks a States-first confederacy would be a good idea despite that having failed literally every time it has been tried in history with the exception of in Switzerland. And it only works in Switzerland because of how small they are that nobody has major differences of opinion.
>>80328179
>an untestable economic theory cannot be invalidated by testing
wow you sure showed him
>>80328635
You shouldn't trust theoretical frameworks that cannot be falsified.
>>80328580
it was supposed to be states first
the federal government is supposed to be absolute, but extremely limited
the states also had significant political and practical power against the federal government
the constitution itself was barely legitimate when it passed, and only gained legitimacy afterward.
>>80328877
>trust
it's a "i could believe that" or "that makes sense" kind of theory, not a "sole basis for society" kind of theory
>>80309767
A CONVENTION OF THE STATES IS THE ABSOLUTE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN AT THIS TIME. WHO DO YOU THINK WOULD END UP IN THE DELEGATIONS OF THE SEVERAL STATES? CERTAINLY NOT THE PEOPLE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING AND MORAL STRENGTH REQUIRED TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
>>80328580
>the US was supposed to be a states-first government
Uhhh you are aware the the ANTI-Federalist papers also exist, right? Like, that this has always been a highly contentious issue? It wasn't "supposed" to be federal-first government either.
>>80327971
All laws drawn from the breath of kek
I don't see how any of this shit is good for the people.
>>80327766
>to prevent confusion and misunderstanding
this is only a product of the fact that nobody understand the context or language used anymore
the second amendment is obvious to anyone who understands grammar, but the supreme court supposedly has debates about militias still
>>80309767
WILL THE SOUTH RISE AGAIN?
>>80324190
>they don't make wealth
>this retard has as much power to voice his opinion as anyone else about economics
christ
>>80329178
>but the supreme court supposedly has debates about militias still
not since dc v. heller and that was a challenge from a 1975 law
>>80329371
Are you saying that failed businesses somehow produce wealth without producing a profit?
>>80329427
>not since dc v. heller
you really don't know what you're talking about
they haven't changed the precedent but are you actually under the impression they haven't heard any related cases since
not to mention I'm referring to it historically, 30 years aint shit
also you're missing the point
>>80327971
See above for more.
>>80329614
If they put an idea out there, even if it fails, and later someone else improves upon it and markets it successfully. Yes, they've produced wealth.
>>80329614
it is possible for a business to produce a net gain of wealth before it dies retard
small businesses also account for a shit ton of wealth, and moreso in smaller countries
that you think they don't do anything is astounding
>Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-10th Amendment
>>80327971
revert any social amendments back
revert any voting changes back
that's it, everything else will fix itself over time
and that's the real problem, people want immediate change, which leads to long term consequences
for example, changing the way the senate is elected I would argue is the root cause for why washington is so big today relative to the states
>>80329889
We need amendments to keep these corrupt fucks from blatantly ignoring the ones we already have
>>80322051
We're not fighting a war because Congress never declared war. Retard.
>>80329662
>they haven't changed the precedent
because thats not what they do...
>missing the point
you failed to make a coherent one and have a tentative grasp on what the supreme court actually does in addition to how they take cases
>>80329889
the word expressly would get the supreme court to fuck off.....
.....for 20 years before they misinterpret it again
>>80330171
>misinterpret
heh
>>80329889
>nor prohibited by it to the States
i love how people just ignore this part
>>80330127
>that's not what they do
yes.....it is...what the fuck are you talking about?
>you fail to make a coherent point
that the supreme court still debates what militias are...through opinions and dissents
and the heller precedent they're working off of is merely a political arrangement that is completely wrong
>don't know what the supreme court does
lol
>>80314556
>I don't know how amending the Constitution works
>I think the President has any fucking say in changing the Constitution
>>80330400
explain
>>80314556
it would probably be better to do so because the popular opinion would be republican in nature
but it would still be shit
also
>>80330533
>>80309767
How about the rightwingers read past the second amendment before you talk about adding more?
>>80330926
This coming from people who don't even respect the first amendment.
>>80309767
>>Require Congress to balance its budget.
NO YOU DIRTY GOYIM
LEAVE THE BUDGET ALONE MUH SHEKELS
>>80330443
the supreme court rarely changes precedent and its always a major deal when it happens, it doesn't come up very often
jurisprudence is at the core of how our judicial system (common law) works
>still debates
care to post these please, i'm curious to see that they are real
>that is completely wrong
according to what exactly
>>80330547
it goes back to the de jure and de facto bit i said a while back, states are very much in control of what they do, some just seem incredibly insistent on wanting to push laws to the brink and get them challenged and defeated
>>80328995
The US was barely legitimate in any form when it passed, and had almost no international legitimacy until the constitution.
>>80329138
The constitution is clearly federalist, and do you know why the federalists won the debate? Because the US tried a confederation for 10 years. 10 years where we couldn't afford a military. 10 years when our ships were press ganged on at will by foreign powers because we had no legitimacy or way of striking back. 10 years of economic failure because each state acted protectionist against each other.
Every. Single. Confederation. (with the exception of Switzerland, and it only works because Switzerland is small enough to be totally homogenous in every damn way) in history has been a dismal failure.
>>80331031
"Balancing the budget" has never happened in the US with the exception of a very small period in the later half of the 1800s.
In which America was a global backwater that had just nearly destroyed itself over an argument.
All of the times when America was great and on top of the world? The US didn't have a balanced budget.
>>80309767
>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
These are redundant, as you can already overrule a Supreme Court decision or a Federal law by amending the Constitution, which requires the same 2/3 majority.
>Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
Realize that:
1. There is nothing requiring there to be a certain number of justices, all a president has to do is pack the court to get around this.
2. This means, if the court stays balanced about the same as it is now, that bad laws like gun control would be virtually impossible to overturn at the court-level.
Otherwise I don't really have a problem with the rest of these.
>>80331113
>rarely changes it's precedent
yes, and you point is?
>it's always a major deal
no, it isn't always a major deal
>care to post these
no, you probably don't have lexus or westlaw. If you do, then just check the "cases citing this one" tab
>according to what
that heller bases it's logic of bearing arms around militia interpretation. In reality there are two rights in the second and only one is related to militias
>>80331421
>the us was barely legitimate
eh, that's related to the politics between nations, not within them
>no legitimacy until the constitution
wrong. The constitution didn't do shit even within the country and was ignored for quite a while until it was basically memed into importance. One state, I think New York, left the convention and refused to recognize it for awhile...which bit them in the ass because it had provisions they couldn't object to
>>80325328
Just says congress can't, nothing stopping regulation via constitutional amendment.
>>80331996
all the information is publicly available from the scotus website, you can link me to those debates
the rest of what you posted is gibberish
>>80309767
That would make the Supreme Court worthless.
Isint this what the civil war was about states rights
>>80331571
>All of the times when America was great and on top of the world? The US didn't have a balanced budget.
Not really. Deficits didn't bloat until the 70s.
>>80332400
When has the Supreme Court been a good idea?
>>80332436
>i posted it again
>>80331996
>eh, that's related to the politics between nations, not within them
It's related to the fact that the US Government under the Articles of Confederation had no power. Everyone could ignore the US and the US had no way to get them to listen.
>wrong. The constitution didn't do shit even within the country and was ignored for quite a while until it was basically memed into importance. One state, I think New York, left the convention and refused to recognize it for awhile...which bit them in the ass because it had provisions they couldn't object to
It was "memed into importance" because all but the most zealous anti-federalists realized the articles of confederation just weren't working. The country was a joke during those times. As to it not doing anything until enough states got behind it... that's not a flaw of the document, that's how ratification was designed to work. It had no power until 2/3s of the states said it did.
>>80332400
These days the Supreme court rules based on feels.
>>80332280
>all the information is publicly available
I read case law for work daily and I'm not using a shitty site to fish for a case, especially not for some shitter that can't speak at a first year law school level
there have been dozens of cases that reinforce the heller decision wherein they argue about the precedent. They argue in every case they ever take if you weren't aware. They don't just rubber stamp it if they keep the same precedent you fucking goon
>gibberish
maybe to a retard
>>80332400
it wasn't supposed to be a big deal, one of the reason people hated england was the corrupt judiciary, which we have an even worse situation of today
>>80332627
since always, you being assblasted about decisions you don't like doesn't change that
>>80332400
The Supreme Court has no power anyway. All they can do is say "NUUUU! UR LAW SUCKS GET RID OF IT REEEEEEE".
The problem is when the President decides to send in troops to enforce a Court decision.
>>80332509
While it was true that there were odd years out - the US has ran a net deficit for its entire history as a country (except for said few years in the late 1800s). Expecting a long term balanced budget is impossible. (Even in the boom years post WW2 note how it is still a net deficit)
>>80332509
I miss bush 2
>>80332877
if your claim is that you are in law school, or that you even went, get a refund
no claim was ever made that they don't argue about cases, i'm not sure where you came up with that one
>>80311599
under the Constitution, yeah it has always existed.
it's insane interpretation comes from a court case though (wickard v. filburn)
>>80332954
The power of the Supreme Court is enshrined in the constitution. Just because they don't have their own boots on the ground doesn't mean they don't have power - other branches of the government would in fact be committing treason to ignore them and the military would be obligated to treat said branches as traitors.
Never gonna happen. You 12 year old reddit migrants are fucking spodes.
>>80311860
what do you think keeps the 'peace' fucktard? Butterflies and scraps of paper?
>>80332670
>the articles of confederation had no power
has nothing to do with international legitimacy
Assuming you misspoke previously though, yes, the articles of confederation clearly weren't enough for most of the states. That said, they barely listened after the constitution, and only on major things. The federal government was virtually nonexistent for quite some time
>the country was a joke
i disagree with this characterization. The majority of states were mostly concerned with the lack of cohesion fucking them over with other countries.
>not doing anything until states got behind it
no, you misunderstand, they didn't get behind it well after it was ratified.
>that's not a flaw of the document
I never said it was, I'm only trying to convey the context of why our current notion of federal vs. state is an abomination unforeseeable to those at the time
>>80332971
But again, deficits never got out completely out of control like they are now.
>Expecting a long term balanced budget is impossible.
Why? Clinton could do it. The proposed balanced budget amendment allows for exemptions under times of national crisis and war. You could even be a Keynesian under that legislation.
>>80312292
that's like saying you forgot Jesus in a picture of famous Christians.
sure it's missing something, but it's definitely implied.
>>80309767
>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
YYYYYAAAAAAASSSSS
Yes! Yes to everything! Yes!
>>80333067
>get a refund
>the dumbest person I've spoken to all day calls me dumb
I must say, I'm really offended
>no claim was ever made that they don't argue about cases
">still debates
care to post these please, i'm curious to see that they are real"
that you don't even know they regularly decide related cases, further distinguishing precedent just shows how much talking out of your ass you are doing
>amg federal government runs deficits
>much debt, such bad
>states so much better with money
>force them to balance budget
>they cut pork barrel spending during austerity
>suddenly all the states lose 40%+ of their own revenue since the fed supplements everything every state does, especially shit tier red states
>kek
>>80327173
scotus can interpret arbitrarily, though. look at how they legalized gay marriage, or how they grossly abused the commerce clause in wickard v. filburn to enable regulation of intrastate commerce.
>>80315608
Holy shit, a canadian trying to act intelligent. You are some of the dumbest motherfuckers alive. Your country is worthless. You are worthless. Slit your fucking wrists, subhuman.
>>80333708
Texas is required to balance budgets and its one of the best states economically.
>>80333357
A) Admittedly they are out of control, and Clinton only could do that because the US was in a good place in the 90s.
Infrastructure was still intact, we had tons of surplus military hardware and no major global enemies, and the economy was booming so cuts to services could be tolerated. None of those conditions would have lasted.
B) The amendment as written is utterly pointless. Anything can be called a national crisis. And not allowing deficits in crisis is a road to ruin.
>>80333406
Also pointless, as 2/3s of the state can ratify a constitutional amendment to overrule the supreme court anyhow.
>>80333142
>treason
no
>traitors
no
>military
only with political power
if you weren't aware, when the supreme court started, nobody recognized it's legitimacy to the point where justices left because of what an unimportant position it was
it wasn't meant to be an ultimate decider of law, congress was supposed to assume that role
>>80309767
Literally yes to everything.
Leave it to Texas to get things done.
>>80333658
>>80323869
Something along these lines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYU87QNjPw
>>80311755
But they've already bankrupted social security...
>>80333649
>still hasn't posted it
last chance and i'm being generous
>>80333802
http://www.texastransparency.org/State_Finance/Budget_Finance/Reports/Revenue_by_Source/
>33.5% of Texas' budget is supplemented by the federal government
>its one of the lowest
>>80309767
>Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
This is racist against smaller states. Texans can swing cats without federal interference, Rhode Island faggots can't. Not that Rhode Island has time for swinging, because they have to fix their fucking awful roads. That's right, RI, fix your fucking roads.
>>80333723
interstate commerce is an open joke among everyone in the legal profession
>>80332509
Even when adjusting for inflation, this chart still doesn't present an accurate image of the situation.
After all, the GDP of the US has grown significantly since 1940. So it makes more sense to look at US deficits when calculated as a percentage of the GDP at the time when a historical budget was passed.
>>80315001
>There is no Union of States, there is only the United States.
KYS you fucking moron.
>>80333802
"Balanced budgets" for Texas still include taking in the federal pork. Texas' budget suddenly wouldn't be balanced in a big way if the pork vanished. And if there were major cuts to federal services... Texas would either have to pay the costs or face a massive drop in worker productivity.
After all, like most minimum wage jobs in this country they are only livable with support, and it's the minimum wage jobs that have been lowering the unemployment rate. You know, walmart jobs. The kinds you are below the poverty line on and need assistance for food and healthcare.
>>80315665
This time, it will be more than the south that will be fighting over this shit. Most people are fed up with Obama's shredding of the constitution.
>>80330094
Which is the most interesting thing. For whatever reason, Congress has decided that declaring war isn't a necessary step to destroy another country to the tune of a few trillions.
>>80310567
This will lead to the loss of the 2nd
>>80333835
The deficits are entirely the fault of recent congress and presidents. We didn't have to go to war like we did; spend a shitload of money bailing people out, and so on.
>Anything can be called a national crisis.
Not really. We already have similar stuff in place.
>>80333986
>>80334190
>states receive money from the federal government
wow; doesn't refute my point at all.
>>80334179
...he's right
>>80316969
Whatever you need to tell yourself, mate.
>>80309767
Fuck yeah, I like all of those ideas.
Good luck Governor.
>>80333927
That was top notch, I say. In return here is another.
>>80324309
The proof is Lincoln freed slaves after the war had started. If it was about muh niggers he would've freed them before.
>>80320617
Copyright being extended to close to the length of the live of the country would be a good example.
>>80309767
Fuck. Yes.
>>80333901
People never questioned its legitimacy - there was just very, very little under purview from the supreme court.
You are acting as if it is some wholesale fabrication - it is not. The fact that they are an arbitrator of law is the role of ANY court in a common law state, and the US was always formed under common law.
>>80332971
>Expecting a long term balanced budget is impossible
Are you an idiot?
You think the country collapses if they just spend less money?
It's all fucking welfare eating it up, literally paying people to not work/not have incomes
>>80333835
>Also pointless, as 2/3s of the state can ratify a constitutional amendment to overrule the supreme court anyhow.
Its not being used though, that is the point.
>>80324190
>>muh small businesses
>Who gives a shit? They don't make wealth and in fact a vast majority of them go under within a year.
FUCKING KILL YOURSELF YOU IGNORANT BABOON.
Most jobs in this country are provided by small to medium sized businesses.
KYS
>>80334323
You're argument was Texas was fiscally sound while the federal government was not when it is only fiscally sound because the federal government gives it money that allows it to be.
And deficits are are direct result of Republicunt ideals. They cut taxes so they can run their re-election ads saying they cut taxes, but they have no testicular fortitude to cut spending as well because then their opponent would run ads criticizing them for cutting entitlements.
Their fiscal conservatism literally does not exist and their tax cuts are destroying the country and helping no one (other than the rich, who don't even reinvest the money/create jobs like Republican'ts claim they do).
>>80311330
t. A triggered spook
>>80334323
You're saying anything can't be called a national crisis when anything has been called interstate commerce, and anyone the US wants to spy on has been labelled to have connections to terrorism.
Politicians haven't stretched the meaning of crisis yet only because they haven't really needed to. It would happen in short order here.
As to Texas, it does refute your point. Texas is only able to function with a balanced budget because it is receiving free funding from an organization that does not.
Balancing the federal budget would eliminate that, and Texas would be unable to run a balanced budget. Someone has to run deficits.
>>80334887
"providing jobs" is not a good thing
that implies inefficiencies
Bet you could automate almost all of em
>>80309767
>>Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
This is just nuts.
>Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.
How is this even a thing? Your senators and house reps pass a law and your governors overrule it?
>>80333957
>it
laughing at your ignorance to be honest family
but I am also feeling generous lad, so here is one, and a picture of more
Caetano v. Massachusetts
Also I'll let you in on a little secret. The supreme court also sets precedent outside of cases too, like when they choose to accept a case or not.
Guys I love all these ideas but we need to spread this shit for ALL normies.
We need to MEME this shit into existence. To your MEME STATIONS!
>>80334911
>And deficits are are direct result of Republicunt ideals.
LOL
How delusional
Meanwhile the Democrat parties voting base is people on welfare or government workers
>>80334320
not really. Dems hold power because they hold a few strategically important cities in high population states, which gives them an edge in the electoral college and Senate.
making the vote based on state legislatures radically shifts things, because the majority of states in general are red.
such a provision would smooth out the urban-rural divide.
>>80335026
>"providing jobs" is not a good thing
Literally wut?
>>80310728
No they don't. The first, 3rd, and 7th proposals are the only decent ones. Everything else is just butthurt writ large.
>>80334712
The vast bulk of welfare is spent on people who are in fact working - Walmart is the biggest welfare queen on the planet.
You have a great misunderstanding about what welfare is.
>>80334857
I am a fan of a lack of bloat. Why add an amendment to provide a power the constitution already provides.
>>80324309
>>80311701
Kek the south arguing against the north that it was about slavery.
10/10.
>>80334590
not sure if you're just trolling or this ignorant of your own country's history
slavery (and especially the expansion of slavery in the West) was a massive issue in the mid-1800's in the US. It was so divisive Congress had to a measure to not discuss it when it was in session because every time it came up everything became a shitshow and order broke down. There were people from the North leading armed attacks into the South to free slaves, and people from slave states literally invading and waging war in free territories with the aim of expanding slavery into them (Bleeding Kansas being the biggest example).
Fuck, every single Confederate state listed the preservation of slavery as one of their main reasons for session
>The proof is Lincoln freed slaves after the war had started. If it was about muh niggers he would've freed them before.
no you retard, the Republican Party's position was to halt the expansion of slavery into the West, not to end it altogether. Everyone know ending slavery overnight would be catastrophic, both to society and to the economy. It was only until the war when both were fucked anyway that they figured they might as well go ahead and do it
>>80334712
Requiring Congress to pass a balanced budget isn't a negative thing in and of itself. However, such a policy must include clauses that would allow Congress to deficit spend in the wake of a recession to prevent austerity measures from hitting the economy when it is at its most vulnerable.
>>80334682
>never questioned it's legitimacy
a primary complaint from federalists was the fact that it had no power to enforce
a complaint from the supreme court itself was that people would just ignore it's decisions
literally what are you talking about?
>the US was formed under common law
oh my god anon you can't be serious
we've always had statutory law, adapted largely from common law and still using common law to fill the cracks so to speak
you and this other faggot who have no idea what they're talking about need to fuck off
>>80334857
How would the proposed amendment change the frequency of its use?
>>80335100
http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/04/interactive-republicans-more-likely-to-have-constituents-who-use-food-stamps/
Nice try faggot.
> Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), 76 had levels of 20% or higher. Of those, 43 are held by Republicans while 33 are controlled by Democrats.
There are more poor white trash people on welfare than the entire black population in the entire country... And almost every single white trash cunt in this country is a Republishit.
>>80319781
Big corps just pay off elected officials anon.
Telecom owns as many reps as oil almost by now.
>>80309767
all good amendments
shame they'll never pass
sorry lone star senpai
>>80335026
if there are no subsidies or state interventions, providing jobs implies they're making money and thus providing net value
kys commie leaf
>>80309767
white house petition about this when
>>80309767
Yet nobody seems to look towards a proven method...
http://teamlaw.net/
>>80309767
I support generally.
If states get more rights, then I can go around calling myself a Hoosier before an American.
>>80316261
would be interested in hearing a knowledgable anon address these points
>>80334948
Isn't Texas a net tax provider to the government?
>>80335319
By people ignoring its decisions the issue was that congress liked to rework the law after they lost a court case. And by them having no power to enforce they meant that the whole US court system had yet to be built up.
They can make a ruling, but with no organized courts, police, and justice system what good is a ruling? Nobody questioned the legitimacy of the rulings, that is what I am trying to say. It was legitimate, it just ruled over irrelevant things.
You're talking about me having no idea and yet you have no clue what common law is. "Common law" is a legal system, and is not some replacement for statutory law. It's not a different classification of law, it's a different way of running a legal system. The name is highly misleading.
>>80335295
the south didn't secede solely because of slavery though, they would have kept doing it had they not seceded anyway
>>80335071
...you do realize that case has nothing to do with what was being discussed right? the topic was never about the 2nd amendment, it was your insistence that "militia" is still being defined when it quite clearly isn't
and thats a goofy way of saying the lower courts precedent stands but sure, i'll let it slide in your own strange wording
>>80335314
that's exactly why it's a pointless amendment, because if there's a serious reason to overrule it, the government will find it
since 2000 the US has had 2 real wars, a dozen troop deployments around the world as part of the War on Terror, and a major banking crisis and recession. All of those could be used as a reason to make an exception and allow deficit spending, and the next major challenge the US faces would do the same
>>80309767
All of these sound pretty good. Though, I might add something to deal with the banks. Then again, that's basically begging for the site to be bombed into dust.
>>80335756
Get your lost cause of the confederacy revisionist bullshit out of here.
The seceded LITERALLY for no other reason than slavery. The old GOP was going to prevent the creation of new slave states and congress would abolish slavery in short order after that. Thus they seceded to save their own fucking economies based entirely on slavery.
>>80310658
Literally impossible you fucking retard. There could be a clear cucked blue majority of states in the US and this STILL couldn't happen because of how the process works, see previous posts. 3/4ths have to approve an amendment meaning there's not going to be a repeal of ANY amendment. Though if you were to go for one, I'd argue for restoring the original function of senators by abolishing the 17th amendment.
People who espouse theories such as yours are nuts.
t. someone who attended a town hall meeting on this very idea last year with a former senator from my state
>>80335870
Yeah, I agree.
a constitutional convention is proposed every two years since forever.
>>80312525
You know she did porn right.
>>80313455
So the founders couldn't foresee our machine guns repeal. But the founders couldn't foresee tyranny too now. Way to be a faggot. The founders were more intelligent than you'll ever be.
>>80335747
>was the issue congress liked to rework after they lost a case
literally when and what are you talking about
>it was legitimate
nobody cared, so it wasn't, it wasn't that it was just irrelevant
>you have no idea what common law is
I'm really having a good laugh with my mates, it's just too funny
>it's not some replacement for statutory law
yes it is, though not absolutely
>it's a different way of running a legal system
this is just hilarious. You're damn right it is a different way. It's the difference between elected representatives passing law and a court doing it without input from a legislative body
statutory law literally overrides common law
the constitution is a series of statutes
>>80335839
>your insistence that "militia" is still being defined
no, that isn't what my insistence was. My insistence is that Heller is bad law:
"that heller bases it's logic of bearing arms around militia interpretation. In reality there are two rights in the second and only one is related to militias"
the argument the supreme court agrees with ties to militias, I disagree and say the 2nd protects more than just militias generally
I also said heller was further distinguished, I never said anything about militias being further defined. I said the court still argues over heller and the 2nd amendment
>goofy was of saying the lower court's precedent stands
what the fuck are you talking about?
>>80335756
the catalyst for the secession was Lincoln being elected despite basically the entire South voting for Douglass. The South went from the electoral powerhouse it was in 1776 with Virginia being basically the most important state, to a position where they would get outvoted in everything in the future. They had already lost all of the recent measures in Congress to expand slavery, all of the recent legislation and court decisions were towards restriction slavery more and more (the DC slave trade ban being a big one), and anti-slavery parties like the Free Soil and (to a much lesser extent) the Republicans were growing more and more popular.
Secession happened because they saw the writing on the wall and knew the South no longer had the power to dominate or even exert occasional control over the federal government, and going their own way was the only choice for guaranteeing that a few decades down the line there the North didn't decide to overrule them on slavery. There was a few other things in there like opposition to tariffs and general states rights stuff, but even that was a result of the slave economy and intrinsically tied to that issue.
>>80335339
First, of course there are more, if 16% of whites are in welfare, they are bigger than the whole dindu population. But sure, let's forget Latinos because fuck it, we are already starting with a misrepresentation of data to prove a point. As for the that map, here's another map:
http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/
Care to match them? Also, let's take this futher:
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/
Play with the numbers and there's always more poor non-whites than whites.
In short, bullshit.
>>80336442
Who gives a shit what the founders intended. They created a government to govern 13 sparse, coastal, agricultural states and a few million people. They didn't design it to govern a continent spanning post-industrial urban dominated superpower with 330,000,000 people.
>>80309767
How many States do Republicans control?
>>80336156
>>80336517
>confederacy revisionist
I'm a northerner actually
>the old GOP would have consolidated power
"slave states" were a voting block that was about more than slavery too
I'm not saying it wasn't primarily about slavery, but I think there was a genuine belief that the southern states would be dominated by the federal government. There were plenty of people in the south that didn't own slaves.
>>80336502
>no, that isn't what my insistence was. My insistence is that Heller is bad law
you claimed both
>>80329178
>but the supreme court supposedly has debates about militias still
>>80330443
>that the supreme court still debates what militias are...through opinions and dissents
>and the heller precedent they're working off of is merely a political arrangement that is completely wrong
>what the fuck are you talking about?
its quite clear, if the supreme court refuses to hear a case, the lower courts ruling stands and will be used as precedent upon further review
are you done or do you wanna dig that hole deeper
>>80336156
>>80336517
a related and perhaps inaccurate example of what I'm talking about would be opposition to immigration today
it is about race and ethnicity through and through, but it's also fear that it will lead to a government you don't agree with dominating you
>>80336848
They have 32 of the Governors, and have control of all three non-judicial components of government in 23.
>>80335071
how much does that account cost?
>>80337002
>you claimed both
>the supreme court supposedly has debates about militias still
my point here was that they still consider the second amendment to be solely about militias, and further cases continue to use the militias argumentation
the case I referred you bases what kind of arms you can own around the militia interpretation used in heller
Friedman v. City of Highland Park
this case actually does talk about what a militia is
>goofy way of saying a lower courts precedent stands
when the supreme court rejects a case or takes a case, it means more than just precedent for the lower court. Usually a combination of rejected and taken cases in aggregate is what signals an equivalent of precedent
>you wanna dig that hole deeper
your lack of reading comprehension isn't my hole
you're really being an obtuse nigger
>>80336872
fair enough. It really comes down to the idea that slavery was a key part of Southern culture and the economy, even if most Southerners didn't own slaves. People wanted to defend those things, especially when they felt they were threatened by outsiders, though they themselves were only tangentially impacted by them
>>80337103
Not really, it was largely an economic and political thing. Immigration isn't leading to new major voting blocks or changes in the economic landscape in America. And despite what /pol/ thinks 95% of immigrants assimilate in 2 generations without too many problems. The Germans, Irish, Italians, and Poles that immigrated in large groups were all seen as uneducated, completely incompatible with American culture, and dangerous and associated with criminality, not to mention most people didn't consider them white at the time. Today no one would bat an eye at some called Bauer, Murphy, or Bruno or think they're some swarthy foreigner who could never be American. It's going to be the same with the Mexicans in 40 years; when I lived in California all of the kids of Mexican decent acted more white than I did.
>>80337184
too much for you to buy
typically only law firms and schools and stuff pay for it
charges by the document
>>80338122
>isn't leading to new major voting blocks
so you haven't seen the numbers?
texas might turn blue in the next 20 years mate, the electoral maps look like a creeping cancer
>>80335071
FCC vs Fox, damn that could be interesting
>>80338262
Members of the Florida Bar get that for a nominal fee.
t: 3L
>>80338099
>to use the militias argumentation
which is moot now that everyone is considered part of
no, the case you linked debates the use of arms that weren't available at the drafting of the 2nd amendment, which is rather pointless as thats already been decided before that case
>Usually a combination of rejected and taken cases in aggregate is what signals an equivalent of precedent
agreed, but again, thats not what you said per your prior statement
>you're really being an obtuse nigger
no, you are just dogshit at trying to get your points across and half gibberish statements
>>80338415
it was about indecency standards, not too interesting and nothing to do with the 2nd oddly enough
>>80338715
>which is moot now
no, the type of weapons are tied to militias among other things. It could also be overturned in the future because it's a retarded argument
constitutional interpretation is almost never moot. Generally speaking, issues have only gotten more distinguished and complicated over time
>no the case you linked....
no, they discussed what a militia is an how it relates to the state also. Or are you so ignorant as to not know there can be sub issues in cases?
>that's not what you said
it was, just not exactly like that, you're just autistic
>gibberish
again, you're lack of comprehension isn't my problem
>>80338366
nah, settled Hispanics tend to lean Republican if anything, though it's a pretty close split
the GOP did a good job of not making immigration a big issue and winning votes from them until Trump opened his mouth. In another election cycle when everyone forgets this embarrassment Texas will be back to strong red
>>80339194
>the type of weapons are tied to militias among other things
no, they aren't, how did you even come up with this?
its moot because we already have a ruling on this
>they discussed what a militia is an how it relates to the state also
except they didn't
mind sharing where you went to school or what organization you are part of, i'd like to avoid it at all costs
>>80320617
>unironically espousing neoliberalism
>>80339489
What statistics are you looking at? Texas Latinos voted in step with the rest of the Latinos, even before trump, to the tune of 28-72, for republicans. This delusion of the republican latinos is just false, the mexicans are littler better than nigs in terms of voting for gibs.
>>80339489
>settled
iirc it was like 3 generations
>>80339531
>they aren't how did you come up with this
they are, and the case I linked you does this
>it's moot because we had a ruling
that isn't how it works lol
>except they didn't
they did, read the case
>mind sharing where you went to school so I can avoid it
you mean so you can strawman me?
my dad works for nintendo and I went to yale and work at all the top firms
>>80340133
>more gibberish
>>80340210
>i didn't read the case
there's no point in arguing with someone who has no concept of due diligence
I'd link you the text straight out of the case but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to
>>80309767
Based Abbott
