Posted on 08/02/2007 8:14:32 AM PDT by SConservative
The Tenth Amendment is a dead letter if we allow it.
A. We (if you are refering to Texas)don’t need or WANT illegals more than any other part of the country.
B. You need to study YOUR history.
Sovereignty was NOT lost due to the War Between The States, only the right of secession, and that is even questionable.
You should go away, Troll. or back to DU where you belong.
Before you are ZOTTED.
So try to secede again and see where it gets you.
The Constitution applies nationwide and that includes Texas. As I said before, if any state tries to ban personal ownership of firearms there will be a bunch of converts to the application of the Second Amendment to declare unconstitutional a state law.
Ooooh a threat from someone who can’t hold up his end of a losing argument. Go ahead and hit that “Report Abuse” link. Go right ahead.
I don’t have to do that.
Give you enough rope, and you will HANG yourself.
Like I said - empty threat.
Time will tell.
Do it now. ZOT me. All hat and no cattle.
“Today you have the illegal Mexicans who perform the same function so it seems you need them after all.”
No Mexicans working for free around here..
I don’t zot anybody, Bubba. We have moderators, and that is THEIR job.
As I said, I intend to sit back and watch you hang yourself.
When you do, I will be there. With popcorn. :)
God bless Texas...
Remember to take a breath every once in a while.
Did you ever notice how the stereotypical God-fearin’ gun-totin’ poster here wants the Second Amendment interpreted in the loosest possible fashion which he wants the First Amendment interpreted in the narrowest possible fashion?
Making anyone (little kid or not) say something, may or may not be an establishment of religion, but it certainly violates free speech rights. Surely the right to free speech includes the right to not speak.
A. Compared to the legals they are.
B. Slaves weren’t free either.
Confirmed by Barron in 1833 yes. Gitlow in 1925 incorporated the First Amendment to the separate and sovereign states. So before 1925 (almost 60 full years after the passage of the 14th by force and threat), that was the case, as it should be. The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the separate and sovereign states under the original intent of the Constitution of these United States.
Nothing irks me more than government forcing me or my children to worship God. I’ve got a damn good mind to just tell my daughter who is in public school that she can go stand outside the room if she wants to while the rest of the class goes through this politically driven kneejerk BS.
I paid for 8 years of a Catholic school education for my daughter. I’ll be damned if the state of Texas is going to tell her to worship the God the state of Texas selected for her to worship.
Are you really going to quote me law prior to 1861?
Next you’ll be citing Dred Scott as established case law.
All American citizens are promised rights by the Constitution. The states cannot take them away.
Actually I did two things. I quoted original intent, something 'conservatives' claim they're in favor of (which they never are), and the fact that the First Amendment according to SCOTUS did not apply to the states until 1925 (Gitlow) and then it was a Court that was Progressive leaning.
So we can assume by your disdain for such an argument that you are not a conservative and you support Progressive thought. In fact a liberal
A conservative believes in the Consttitution and Bill of Rights applying to all.
For census purposes do blacks still count as 3/5 of a person in Texas? Does Texas prevent them to voting? Do women vote in Texas? Those were part of original intent too.
In case you missed it, original intent can be modified by proper constituional procedure. That’s why there are a few amendments after the first 10.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.