- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 39,827
- Reaction score
- 19,617
You two suck balls and suck out of all the forums assholes.....lick it up
We don't need to hear your life story. You're mad at your father, not us.
You two suck balls and suck out of all the forums assholes.....lick it up
We don't need to hear your life story. You're mad at your father, not us.
Ah you touched on a subject.
Be well and don't fuck with me.
No such thing as automatic incorporation. Powers were granted and reserved.
It's crystal clear that the federal government was not to infringe upon the thing of the people. And powers not granted the feds were reserved to the states.
You lost me here as well. Incorporation forbids states from denying their citizens the right to free speech. I take a pretty narrow definition of speech in this context, and I certainly don't think it applies to most of the "devices" you're probably referring to. For example, in my view, a state has the power to forbid text messaging among its citizens. The federal government does not have this power, because the federal government is one of enumerated powers, and the power to regulate text messages is not enumerated.Based on the bullshit (my opinion) interpretation of the 14th, you're wrong. No different than states can outlaw communication on devices or in languages not previously known. Do you even consistency, bro? Or do you just hate rights?
Then I guess you'd contend the feds have no jurisdiction over internet commerce since it's an entire age past what the Constitution referred to. Going through satellites is circumventing legal borders and airspace. Nothing is crossed. It just winds up elsewhere.
You two suck balls and suck out of all the forums assholes.....lick it up
i've got zero problems raising my snowflake flag and wanting my safe space on this one.
I feel compelled to like this even though I don't know what it has to do with my post
I feel compelled to like this even though I don't know what it has to do with my post
Is your contention that, prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, individual states had the authority to deny citizens the right to bear arms? My belief is no. I used "automatic incorporation" to mean that the protection of the 2nd Amendment extended to protection against state government intrusion, due to the wording of the text.
The "thing of the people"? You lost me there.
You lost me here as well. Incorporation forbids states from denying their citizens the right to free speech. I take a pretty narrow definition of speech in this context, and I certainly don't think it applies to most of the "devices" you're probably referring to. For example, in my view, a state has the power to forbid text messaging among its citizens. The federal government does not have this power, because the federal government is one of enumerated powers, and the power to regulate text messages is not enumerated.
Yes. My view is that a constitutional amendment is required if the feds want to regulate the internet. I checked Articles I and II and couldn't find anything about the internet there.
By the way, sorry for the late response. For some reason I didn't see a notification.
SCOTUS ruled in the 1800's that the 2nd only limited the feds.
The logic would be: if the amendment explicitly restricts Congress's authority, then the amendment shouldn't be incorporated. If the amendment is phrased in a general manner (as in the 2nd Amendment), then it would apply to the federal government and the state governments. That said, I'm not done an in-depth study of the views of the founders on this question. I hope to find the time to look at the cases cited in Cruickshank.There's no logic to incorporation that allows for carving out just one right.
The internet is interstate and mostly commerce. If they can regulate firearms sales they sure as shit can place restrictions on internet usage.
The logic would be: if the amendment explicitly restricts Congress's authority, then the amendment shouldn't be incorporated. If the amendment is phrased in a general manner (as in the 2nd Amendment), then it would apply to the federal government and the state governments. That said, I'm not done an in-depth study of the views of the founders on this question. I hope to find the time to look at the cases cited in Cruickshank.
"Interstate commerce" referred to the physical movement of goods and currency across state lines. There was no internet when the clause was written. It should never be applied to a scenario the founders could never have envisioned.
From what ?@Prime Rib saved this thread
From what ?
@Prime Rib saved this thread
Thank you. I just want to spread joy around.