Indeed, the PPP provision was passed almost unanimously. The final house vote was 417 to 1. It passed unanimously in the US senate.
— Styxhexenhammer666 (@Styx666Official) July 1, 2023
Gorsuch FTW. Again.
12,124 Views |
109 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by quash
Sam Lowry said:The 10th Circuit cites Bostock in discussing whether the designer's proposed conduct would likely violate CADA. The discrimination in Bostock wasn't based on sex, yet the Court held that it was "because of" sex. If charged under CADA, the designer would argue that she doesn't discriminate against gay customers but only against certain content. By Gorsuch's reasoning in Bostock, the state could argue the discrimination was still "because of" sexual orientation. To the 10th Circuit's observation I was adding that the state could just as easily charge her with sex discrimination, which is also covered by CADA. In that case the Bostock precedent would be even stronger.sombear said:I don't understand your argument on Bostock. They are completely different issues.Sam Lowry said:Her case didn't depend on the request. The 10th Circuit's standing analysis was well supported by precedent, and apparently it was convincing enough that the state chose not to challenge it.HuMcK said:
This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.
The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.
This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.
The real irony of this case is that Gorsuch ignores his own decision in Bostock. If Colorado ever decides to charge the designer with discrimination based on sex rather than sexual orientation, get the popcorn ready...it should be quite a show of mental gymnastics.
Bostock held that Title VIII's prohibition of sex (gender) discrimination includes sexual orientation discrimination. It was an employment case. Employment is not speech or expression.
Far too many seemingly smart people are misinterpreting this case. It is not a broad license to refuse to serve or otherwise discriminate against LGBT or any other protected class. Rather, it is expressly limited to services that are speech/expression in nature.
I just don't see it but thanks for the explanation. I understand your position now. Again, the majority decided this on 1st Amend grounds, so the grounds on which Colorado would charge the plaintiff is secondary if relevant at all.
Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
yeah, the feds walk over the 10th all the time but usually it is.. change the drinking age or we stop federal funding.. your choice because that is your right as a stateRedbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
HuMcK said:
This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.
The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.
This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.
You really should do some minimal amount of reading before commenting, as yours is just a hodge podge opinion taken from some san fran newsletter.
And when you are clearly willing to take party hack lines over reality and cold hard facts, which branch of government you "believe has legitimacy" is really an exercise in futility, plus nobody cares. Party hacks are the extreme majority here, as well as in society. The only ones worth paying attention to at least read the source material along with their newsletters.
Porteroso said:HuMcK said:
This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.
The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.
This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.
You really should do some minimal amount of reading before commenting, as yours is just a hodge podge opinion taken from some san fran newsletter.
And when you are clearly willing to take party hack lines over reality and cold hard facts, which branch of government you "believe has legitimacy" is really an exercise in futility, plus nobody cares. Party hacks are the extreme majority here, as well as in society. The only ones worth paying attention to at least read the source material along with their newsletters.
There's some irony in your statement. Quash also laid out a smattering of curious facts and timing as well. This case was literally filed days after the Colorado anti discrimination law was enacted, by a conservative advocate group (Josh Hawley's wife is working for them). Setting aside the reasoning in the majority opinion, it seems an awful lot like this case was artificially generated to get exactly this kind of ruling from a newly stacked court. Been a lot of that kind of stuff lately, and you see that reflected in opinion polling about this Court.
The court filing in Stewart’s name has left many baffled, including Stewart himself, who said he was concerned that the case had proceeded without anyone verifying if the request was authentic. https://t.co/LH2DE1f3MS
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) July 2, 2023
Tell us how the Russian Hoax was real and the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. Tell us how Juicy Smalls was the victim of a hate crime and the Covington kids committed one. Tell how the world will be in an ice age by the year 2000 and the Kung Flu was started by a Chinaman eating a bat. Tell us how Michael Brown said "hands up don't shoot" and Jordan Neely was a simple Michael Jackson impersonator. Tell us how George Floyd was a gentle giant and men can have babies.HuMcK said:Porteroso said:HuMcK said:
This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.
The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.
This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.
You really should do some minimal amount of reading before commenting, as yours is just a hodge podge opinion taken from some san fran newsletter.
And when you are clearly willing to take party hack lines over reality and cold hard facts, which branch of government you "believe has legitimacy" is really an exercise in futility, plus nobody cares. Party hacks are the extreme majority here, as well as in society. The only ones worth paying attention to at least read the source material along with their newsletters.
There's some irony in your statement. Quash also laid out a smattering of curious facts and timing as well.The court filing in Stewart’s name has left many baffled, including Stewart himself, who said he was concerned that the case had proceeded without anyone verifying if the request was authentic. https://t.co/LH2DE1f3MS
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) July 2, 2023
HuMcK said:Porteroso said:HuMcK said:
This case and the student loan case have redefined the meaning of standing.
The website designer literally made up the premise her case is based on out of thin air. She said the request came from a gay guy, who it turns out is actually a married straight man in San Francisco that never even heard of her web design business. No one ever asked her to design any gay wedding pages, it's not even clear her business was real or operating before or after the case was filed (by an advocacy group on her behalf). The whole thing was based on a made up "hypothetical" (i.e. fake) request for services.
This case is all kinds of shady, and the SCOTUS majority ignored those issues to reach their desired outcome anyway. This is the kind of case process that just keeps chipping away at the court's legitimacy, and that's coming from someone who believes it still has some.
You really should do some minimal amount of reading before commenting, as yours is just a hodge podge opinion taken from some san fran newsletter.
And when you are clearly willing to take party hack lines over reality and cold hard facts, which branch of government you "believe has legitimacy" is really an exercise in futility, plus nobody cares. Party hacks are the extreme majority here, as well as in society. The only ones worth paying attention to at least read the source material along with their newsletters.
There's some irony in your statement. Quash also laid out a smattering of curious facts and timing as well. This case was literally filed days after the Colorado anti discrimination law was enacted, by a conservative advocate group (Josh Hawley's wife is working for them). Setting aside the reasoning in the majority opinion, it seems an awful lot like this case was artificially generated to get exactly this kind of ruling from a newly stacked court. Been a lot of that kind of stuff lately, and you see that reflected in opinion polling about this Court.The court filing in Stewart’s name has left many baffled, including Stewart himself, who said he was concerned that the case had proceeded without anyone verifying if the request was authentic. https://t.co/LH2DE1f3MS
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) July 2, 2023
Ate you serious? Based on tweets you have determined that every level of court was fooled into taking a fake case? Insert tweets for san fran newsletter in my previous post.
In all of this, freedom of speech (association) is left behind. Laws that prohibit discrimination based on (insert characteristic or lifestyle choice) are antithetical to freedom of speech that is exhibited by with whom one chooses to associate. Let people choose to associate with whom they decide and let the market determine the winners.
FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
I read the entirety of the Supreme Court's decision on the Wedding Website Designer's case. Sotomayor said something out loud in her "dissent" that she should have kept to herself:
— Boaty McBoatface (@22pecoman) June 30, 2023
In Sotomayor's view, the "public market" (whatever that is) belongs to the "state". There is no… pic.twitter.com/cHZyiN9Czn
"Party hacks are the extreme majority here"
Porteroso finally admits to being a party hack, by claiming almost everyone else is.
Porteroso finally admits to being a party hack, by claiming almost everyone else is.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
i am just a hack.. who likes to party!Oldbear83 said:
"Party hacks are the extreme majority here"
Porteroso finally admits to being a party hack, by claiming almost everyone else is.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
Sotomayor proves every decision why token minorities are idiots.Redbrickbear said:I read the entirety of the Supreme Court's decision on the Wedding Website Designer's case. Sotomayor said something out loud in her "dissent" that she should have kept to herself:
— Boaty McBoatface (@22pecoman) June 30, 2023
In Sotomayor's view, the "public market" (whatever that is) belongs to the "state". There is no… pic.twitter.com/cHZyiN9Czn
Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
Harrison Bergeron said:Sotomayor proves every decision why token minorities are idiots.Redbrickbear said:I read the entirety of the Supreme Court's decision on the Wedding Website Designer's case. Sotomayor said something out loud in her "dissent" that she should have kept to herself:
— Boaty McBoatface (@22pecoman) June 30, 2023
In Sotomayor's view, the "public market" (whatever that is) belongs to the "state". There is no… pic.twitter.com/cHZyiN9Czn
Sotomoto sums up the statist philosophy. You belong to the state. All your base are belong to us.
FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Dems to bakers/content creators - "bake that cake or you are a bigot!!!"
Also Dems - we are using our political power to CANCEL private citizens events because WE declare they are a hate group.
They don't give a F about you, it's all about power
Also Dems - we are using our political power to CANCEL private citizens events because WE declare they are a hate group.
They don't give a F about you, it's all about power
Moms for Liberty are absolutely not a hate group&attempt to shut them down is due to their effectiveness. But how is it not a violation of their First Amendment rights that elected officials are trying to get their event canceled? How is this not government shutting down speech? https://t.co/lGU7ZLs3Dr
— Karol Markowicz (@karol) June 25, 2023
Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Agree.
At some point in the distant future it will be interesting to see if the USA ends up something like the USSR.
Already DC pulls endless amounts of power and wealth toward its control (similar to Moscow)
We will see if the subject peoples eventually decide to break off one day.
The American Union could easy ended up like the Soviet Union.
Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
You guys seem to forget that there is no silent majority of conservatives that secretly agree with Trump and even Rand Paul. The 18, 20 and 22 elections proved that. At best you have a 50/50 split and it is probably closer to 60/40 Dems.
If the moderates and conservatives can't come to some type of middle ground, the chances of the disgruntled Dems leaving is none. 90% of MAGAs don't have the resources to move out of Country and if they did "where"? If I had F1 drive money I would go to Monaco, but that isn't the norm
You think you can predict the way a political dissolution will occur. You delude yourself.FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
Wrecks Quan Dough said:You think you can predict the way a political dissolution will occur. You delude yourself.FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
You really think the US is close to a political dissolution and violent over throw?
FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:You think you can predict the way a political dissolution will occur. You delude yourself.FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
You really think the US is close to a political dissolution and violent over throw?
That is not what I said. Learn how to read.
Wrecks Quan Dough said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:You think you can predict the way a political dissolution will occur. You delude yourself.FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
You really think the US is close to a political dissolution and violent over throw?
That is not what I said. Learn how to read.
I read fine, you brought up political dissolution. You said we couldn't predict it. I asked a related question. You didn't answer the question I asked you based on your comments?
So, I will ask again you believe the US is close to political dissolution? Or is that just an attention getter?
FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:You think you can predict the way a political dissolution will occur. You delude yourself.FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
You really think the US is close to a political dissolution and violent over throw?
That is not what I said. Learn how to read.
I read fine, you brought up political dissolution. You said we couldn't predict it. I asked a related question. You didn't answer the question I asked you based on your comments?
So, I will ask again you believe the US is close to political dissolution? Or is that just an attention getter?
You seem to think I have an obligation to answer your questions. You are wrong.
And yet there is still one that is even dumberHarrison Bergeron said:Sotomayor proves every decision why token minorities are idiots.Redbrickbear said:I read the entirety of the Supreme Court's decision on the Wedding Website Designer's case. Sotomayor said something out loud in her "dissent" that she should have kept to herself:
— Boaty McBoatface (@22pecoman) June 30, 2023
In Sotomayor's view, the "public market" (whatever that is) belongs to the "state". There is no… pic.twitter.com/cHZyiN9Czn
Wrecks Quan Dough said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:You think you can predict the way a political dissolution will occur. You delude yourself.FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
You really think the US is close to a political dissolution and violent over throw?
That is not what I said. Learn how to read.
I read fine, you brought up political dissolution. You said we couldn't predict it. I asked a related question. You didn't answer the question I asked you based on your comments?
So, I will ask again you believe the US is close to political dissolution? Or is that just an attention getter?
You seem to think I have an obligation to answer your questions. You are wrong.
Just making snide comments is answer enough... Not worth the time.
FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:You think you can predict the way a political dissolution will occur. You delude yourself.FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
You really think the US is close to a political dissolution and violent over throw?
That is not what I said. Learn how to read.
I read fine, you brought up political dissolution. You said we couldn't predict it. I asked a related question. You didn't answer the question I asked you based on your comments?
So, I will ask again you believe the US is close to political dissolution? Or is that just an attention getter?
You seem to think I have an obligation to answer your questions. You are wrong.
Just making snide comments is answer enough... Not worth the time.
Poor baby.
Engaging in a conversation is a choice.Wrecks Quan Dough said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:You think you can predict the way a political dissolution will occur. You delude yourself.FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
You really think the US is close to a political dissolution and violent over throw?
That is not what I said. Learn how to read.
I read fine, you brought up political dissolution. You said we couldn't predict it. I asked a related question. You didn't answer the question I asked you based on your comments?
So, I will ask again you believe the US is close to political dissolution? Or is that just an attention getter?
You seem to think I have an obligation to answer your questions. You are wrong.
To then willifully ignore a question pertinant to that conversion is a childish choice.
KaiBear said:Engaging in a conversation is a choice.Wrecks Quan Dough said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:You think you can predict the way a political dissolution will occur. You delude yourself.FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
You really think the US is close to a political dissolution and violent over throw?
That is not what I said. Learn how to read.
I read fine, you brought up political dissolution. You said we couldn't predict it. I asked a related question. You didn't answer the question I asked you based on your comments?
So, I will ask again you believe the US is close to political dissolution? Or is that just an attention getter?
You seem to think I have an obligation to answer your questions. You are wrong.
To then willifully ignore a question pertinant to that conversion is a childish choice.
To ignore some silly strawman set up is hardly childish.
FLBear5630 said:Wrecks Quan Dough said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:FLBear5630 said:quash said:
Writing for the majority on the wedding website designer who refused to work with a gay couple on religious grounds Justice Gorsuch had better reasoning than did the author of the dissent, Justice Kagan.
Gorsuch says American society is diverse (a sea of hypotheticals) and we can accommodate diversity by tolerating a certain amount of discrimination. I like his use of tolerance as a rhetorical weapon. He also notes this case is fairly limited to the facts, as the plaintiff had a highly customized product. Whether his ruling put the facts outside of "public accomodations" or not is unclear; that is how it was argued.
Kagan had a nice sounding analogy that today's decision means a dollar in some people's hands is different than a dollar in another person's hand.
Not really.
Being a willing purchaser does not give me the power to compel someone else to serve me. Or, in 14th Amendment terms, I cannot buy your involuntary servitude.
Yes, this is a public accommodation case (was?) but again it turns on its facts: a highly customized product.
Gorsuch is the best selection as a SC Justice that u have seen. He really aligns well with my views.
I like the way he's reframing some cases/issues around property rights. ( See my signature line...)
Yes and commerce. The Nation and it's institutions were set up to stabilize trade and commerce. I think of us as a Netherlands on steroids. I also do think the Founding Fathers had a bit of a libertarian streak in them, maybe not all in, but they liked their property to be their domains.
Yes, because the United States is not a nation. (At least the Founders never intended it to be)
It's a Union of self governing sovereign States (long standing political communities) that existed before the U.S. Federal Union was created.
And the Federal government has only those powers and privileges that the States have granted to the Feds.
The USA is like the EU…neither one are "nations"…but simply large commerce and militarily alliances where sovereign states can work out their disagreements and associate together for mutual protection and trade.
I thought that was settled numerous time from thr Federalist ton1865... Are we going down this road again? Lost Cause 2, minus slavery? Fed is Supreme and Nation is insoluble. I'd that in question again?
If you are making the argument that Lincoln killed the old United States and forever shredded and inverted the meaning of the old Constitution…well you might be right.
But the Constitution that we still have says quite clearly that the Federal government has limited and delegated rights. While the people and the States have endless rights (written and un-written)
But certainly since the 1860s the Federal government has acted in the manner of a consolidated national Republic (like modern France) that dictates to the States (provinces) in a top down manner.
And we are going to do what? Re- argue the Federalists? Bring back the old Confederation of States? Fight the lost cause? Because if you think that is happening you really need to see someone before you get in real trouble. That question was settled by 200k Federalist troops that kicked Bobby Lee's ass until he surrendered.
200k? You mean more like [2,489,836 white Federal soldiers]…700,000 of them being immigrants. Mostly poor Irish but lots of Germans and other groups as well.
Not to mention this massive force was unable to surround and smash Lee and his barefoot rebels for 4 years.
But yes quite the military accomplishment.
The war created the modern consolidated national republic of today.
The US constitution was of course created/written for a very different type of political union.
That is why we have so many arguments about it today.
We have a voluntary Federal Union of States software…running a national consolidated State hardware.
Defeating the South, keeping the Union together and finally ending the question of Federal vs State dominance? Yes it was quite the accomplishment.
So now only having a military of only no immigrants is ok?
You are kidding right? The Articles of Confederation proved that a strong central govt was necessary. The Constitution establishes that. Are you now saying that we don't need a strong central govt? If so, we will be become a third world nation.
The system in place is the best in the world. Now if you want to move to a parliamentary form of the HOR, that could be interesting.
An army of immigrants is obviously as effective as an army of native born Americans.
The point of course is that the Federal government had to bayonet march poor Irish into the army to win that war.
Poor Men who just arrived in the USA and who wanted nothing to do with fighting a war to prevent 11 States from becoming independent.
All while Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress allowed the rich to buy their way out of the draft.
The Civil War doesn't matter. If enough people don't want to live under the yoke of Washington DC and want to leave, then it will happen.
Leave, yes. Fight? They will have to beat the National Guard, US military and those that don't agree with you go back to Article of Confederation types.
Returning to the plain meaning of the US constitution is not returning to the articles of confederation.
It's returning to the real meaning of our CURRENT Constitution.
"The Union is only the representative in the family of nations of all these States. They retain their original powers, except as they have consented for a time to part with them."
-George Pendleton (D-OH) 7/4/1863, Representative and later U.S. Senator for Ohio
A justice? Who cannot talk? Interesting ...BearN said:And yet there is still one that is even dumberHarrison Bergeron said:Sotomayor proves every decision why token minorities are idiots.Redbrickbear said:I read the entirety of the Supreme Court's decision on the Wedding Website Designer's case. Sotomayor said something out loud in her "dissent" that she should have kept to herself:
— Boaty McBoatface (@22pecoman) June 30, 2023
In Sotomayor's view, the "public market" (whatever that is) belongs to the "state". There is no… pic.twitter.com/cHZyiN9Czn
BTW - this thread has taken on odd turn ... let's stop the catfighting.