No one said anyone was.
You were given a list of things the federal govt wasn’t allowed to do without an amendment, but that it was ignoring.
3 Likes
Not I…
Do you not know what incorporated means?
I am not the problem. America has been having these type of debates since our inception.
IMO, your reality is in denial of the principles of the founding of this country. You views are so far to the right…there is no compromise…there is no room for debate…
There are some people I just do not engage with…it is pointless.
This will be my last post to you on this subject…
Again, have a good day.
Oooh, good point. We’ll take on the debt, but they must renounce their claims to mobile military assets ( they keep any bases).
I’d say either way is reasonable.
But it’s not reasonable to divvy up the debt but not the assets.
That’s because constitutional/unconstitutional is a binary decision. There is no debate.
If it’s unconstitutional or not listed in the constitution and you want it to be, you amend the document. The “debate and compromise” the left discusses comes in the amendment process, not in whether the process is followed at all.
Those facts are undebatable, and why you lose.
1 Like
And the democrats lied and did not hold up their end of the bargain. They never planned to once they got what they wanted.
Regulation of arms is not following the constitution.
If it was we could charge you to vote.
And we could select one location to vote and everyone would have to vote there in person.
2 Likes
It could be solved by just following the constitution.
2 Likes
Honestly- I agree! Follow the Constitution.
Then you agree any state that wants to can leave the union wherever they want. If it no longer works for them, they have the right to say see you later.
Well again I would ask- where does that end? Does every village, county and city have a right to just say “see ya” whenever they want?
“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.”
Which entity has the greater restriction on power?
Not the best analogy. If you leave your parent’s house you don’t take your room (or basement) with you.
Maybe if all the folks in Texas (or whatever state) decide to leave they can go as long as they leave their land here.
Texas isn’t your room.
The land belongs to Texans.
1 Like
Maybe a better analogy was in order.
Don’t confuse regulations on arms with restrictions on individual possession of arms. Regulations on arms at the point of manufacture, such as requiring serial numbers and associated record of manufacture, and rules related to operational safety are not prohibited by the Constitution.
They were not talking about manufacture. They were talking about the right to ban certain firearms as regulation.
1 Like
The point is:
Regulations on guns ≠ regulations on people. The Constitution guarantees the right (without infringement) of the people to keep and bear arms. Guns cannot be banned by regulation because that would infringe on your right to keep and bear them. The Government does have the power to keep track of gun production, but they do not have the power to keep track of gun ownership as that too is an infringement.
