What rights should religion have in this issue?

Fixed that...

Are states just so fed up with governmental involvement in the lives of people in their communities that they are just going to do what they feel works best for them?

What responsibility should the federal govt. have in this issue?

Can the states legally decide what is legal or illegal within it's own borders even if it is in contradiction to federal laws?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36335316

We keep hearing about states doing things on their own, fed up with the federal govt. putting laws into their lives. The controversial bathroom bill is a recent example. People seem to be disgusted with the federal govt. telling them how to live in their communities.

Is this the beginning of what comes later? States seceding?

All of these questions have already been answered. Please open your history book to the chapter on the Civil War and slavery. It answers you questions on if states can pass laws that conflict with federal laws. It will also answer your question as to whether states can suceed from the Union .

Dark times.

Is this the beginning of what comes later? States seceding?

Heheheheheh ... Yeah. That always goes well.

Can the states legally decide what is legal or illegal within it's own borders even if it is in contradiction to federal laws?

The controversy is that the Feds have gone way, way beyond Constitutional boundaries in terms of what they have authority over.

The 10th amendment was suppose to ensure that they would not grow to become an all-encompassing behemoth, swallowing authority on every topic imaginable. That held up fairly well till the 20th century, when progressives started using the courts as arbiter of every decision they couldn't get through the legislature.

The language of the 10th amendment is pretty clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Obamacare is a perfect example of judicial end-run of the Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution that grants authority to the Federal gov't to force citizens to buy anything. But when it came up to the court, Roberts decided that he didn't want to face up to the pressure of upholding the Constitution against Congress, so he re-wrote parts of the bill and declared it a tax. Now the Feds have the authority to "tax" us based on any whim they can devise in the future. Also something not granted to them in the Constitution, but now made possible by a court decision.

The foundational principles of our liberty, and the tightly defined limits of the Federal gov't, have been eroded to the point of most people not realizing that they ever originally existed. Abortion was once a state-by-state decision, aligning with how the Constitution authorized that power. As a Libertarian I believe no gov't should have power over the individual's body. But as an admirer of our Constitution, I would be satisfied with this being a state-by-state decision, because I could find somewhere to live that aligned with my beliefs.

Yes, our rights have been eroded so deeply, we live in such squalor under the thumbs of dictators.

Yes, our rights have been eroded so deeply, we live in such squalor under the thumbs of bankers.

Fixed that for ya

Also something the Founder's tried to avoid - a central bank - but finally became undone. If you don't think that $19+ trillion in debt will eventually cause massive havoc and destroy what liberties we might have left, then the phrase "history repeats" must have no meaning.

Yes, our rights have been eroded so deeply, we live in such squalor under the thumbs of bankers.

Fixed that for ya

Also something the Founder's tried to avoid - a central bank - but finally became undone. If you don't think that $19+ trillion in debt will eventually cause massive havoc and destroy what liberties we might have left, then the phrase "history repeats" must have no meaning.

Well, I'm sure that President Trump will do everything he can to reverse the balance of power away from the elite power banking class.

Someone is going to have to deal with the problem that the big banks are facing and it will not be an easy, quick thing. We need someone who can manage a budget as well as finance, I think Trump can do that. Though I don't think any of the candidates have dealt with anything this large on a global scale before.

http://www.prepperfortress.com/100-trillion-american-economic-collapse-jim-rickards/

"Right now, JPMorgan Chase has more than 67 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives but it only has 2.5 trillion dollars in assets.

Right now, Citibank has nearly 60 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives but it only has 1.9 trillion dollars in assets.

Right now, Goldman Sachs has more than 54 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives but it has less than a trillion dollars in assets.

Right now, Bank of America has more than 54 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives but it only has 2.2 trillion dollars in assets.

Right now, Morgan Stanley has more than 44 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives but it has less than a trillion dollars in assets.

The bill allowed an exemption for an abortion necessary to save the life of the mother.
“The bill is so ambiguous and so vague that doctors cannot be certain what medical circumstances would be considered ‘necessary to preserve the life of the mother,’” Fallin said, in a statement from her office, where she was described as "the most pro-life governor in the nation."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oklahoma-abortion-idUSKCN0YB2OT

Yes, our rights have been eroded so deeply, we live in such squalor under the thumbs of bankers.

Fixed that for ya

Also something the Founder's tried to avoid - a central bank - but finally became undone. If you don't think that $19+ trillion in debt will eventually cause massive havoc and destroy what liberties we might have left, then the phrase "history repeats" must have no meaning.

Don't worry. Trump said we can't default because we can always print enough money to pay it off. Trump is a brilliant businessman, so I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.

Are states just so fed up with governmental involvement in the lives of people in their communities that they are just going to do what they feel works best for them?

What responsibility should the federal govt. have in this issue?

Can the states legally decide what is legal or illegal within it's own borders even if it is in contradiction to federal laws?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36335316

We keep hearing about states doing things on their own, fed up with the federal govt. putting laws into their lives. The controversial bathroom bill is a recent example. People seem to be disgusted with the federal govt. telling them how to live in their communities.

Is this the beginning of what comes later? States seceding?

All of these questions have already been answered. Please open your history book to the chapter on the Civil War and slavery. It answers you questions on if states can pass laws that conflict with federal laws. It will also answer your question as to whether states can suceed from the Union .

But apparently it is more a function of the political climate and not adherence to the constitution over the issues you mention. Marijuana is a great case in point; Legal at the state level in several states, but illegal at the federal level. Selective application of the constitution.

Like stated above...

It's all good when you want to get loaded, but murdering babies is bad ?

Can't thumbs up states going against federal law in one instance and not another.

Are states just so fed up with governmental involvement in the lives of people in their communities that they are just going to do what they feel works best for them?

What responsibility should the federal govt. have in this issue?

Can the states legally decide what is legal or illegal within it's own borders even if it is in contradiction to federal laws?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36335316

We keep hearing about states doing things on their own, fed up with the federal govt. putting laws into their lives. The controversial bathroom bill is a recent example. People seem to be disgusted with the federal govt. telling them how to live in their communities.

Is this the beginning of what comes later? States seceding?

All of these questions have already been answered. Please open your history book to the chapter on the Civil War and slavery. It answers you questions on if states can pass laws that conflict with federal laws. It will also answer your question as to whether states can suceed from the Union .

But apparently it is more a function of the political climate and not adherence to the constitution over the issues you mention. Marijuana is a great case in point; Legal at the state level in several states, but illegal at the federal level. Selective application of the constitution.

Tommy Chong wanted to endorse Bernie Sanders, but Bernie's people did not find room for him at the public meeting. Chong did a you tube video saying that he wanted to light up and vote for Bernie who would be the Kush CEO. Some reporters said that referred to Hindu Kush (Afghanistan) where pot grows (?). Bernie wanted to decriminalize it but he's not going to be the spokesman or poster boy for High Times.

It all comes down to what should the govt. be legislating on, and what should the states legislate on? Colorado has boldly gone where no other state has gone before on the issue of marijuana, I think eventually states will just decide for themselves what they want for their people. I do think stoned drivers will be worse than drunk drivers, so that could be a problem down the road.

With the issue of abortion, the feds get involved because they provide funding to states and municipalities for the programs and the abortions. If Trump gets elected, I think he will delegate more power to the states to manage their citizens and wield less at the federal level. The biggest thing is the sovereignty of ours and other nations borders. He does not want to be an interventionalist, he is not into nation building other than doing good trade deals. Things will be different under his leadership.

Yes, our rights have been eroded so deeply, we live in such squalor under the thumbs of bankers.

Fixed that for ya

Also something the Founder's tried to avoid - a central bank - but finally became undone. If you don't think that $19+ trillion in debt will eventually cause massive havoc and destroy what liberties we might have left, then the phrase "history repeats" must have no meaning.

Sorry you live such a shackled existence. May you someday be free. From whatever.

Can the states legally decide what is legal or illegal within it's own borders even if it is in contradiction to federal laws?

They keep trying. Look at all the gun laws and regulations that are in effect, unconstitutional.

Can the states legally decide what is legal or illegal within it's own borders even if it is in contradiction to federal laws?

They keep trying. Look at all the gun laws and regulations that are in effect, unconstitutional.

They aren't unconstitutional unless adjudicated so.

Can the states legally decide what is legal or illegal within it's own borders even if it is in contradiction to federal laws?

They keep trying. Look at all the gun laws and regulations that are in effect, unconstitutional.

They aren't unconstitutional unless adjudicated so.

They are unconstitutional if they deny a person the right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment.
Just as much as if the National Guard came to you and searched your home and papers without a warrant.

Can the states legally decide what is legal or illegal within it's own borders even if it is in contradiction to federal laws?

They keep trying. Look at all the gun laws and regulations that are in effect, unconstitutional.

They aren't unconstitutional unless adjudicated so.

They are unconstitutional if they deny a person the right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment.
Just as much as if the National Guard came to you and searched your home and papers without a warrant.

Can you be more specific? And not a far fetched hypothetical that is not likely to ever happen, I mean a current state gun law that is unconstitutional.

Can the states legally decide what is legal or illegal within it's own borders even if it is in contradiction to federal laws?

They keep trying. Look at all the gun laws and regulations that are in effect, unconstitutional.

They aren't unconstitutional unless adjudicated so.

They are unconstitutional if they deny a person the right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment.
Just as much as if the National Guard came to you and searched your home and papers without a warrant.

Can you be more specific? And not a far fetched hypothetical that is not likely to ever happen, I mean a current state gun law that is unconstitutional.

How about the California law that requires any firearms sold be a "smart gun" or has the "Judge Dredd" (microstamping) type identifiers, in other words "California Legal". The smart guns are limited to one made in Germany with a.22 caliber round, and microstamping is not available anywhere. thus pretty much stopping the legal sale of almost all firearms in the state?

Some of Californias' laws have already been ruled unconstitutional, and others as non-enforcable by LEOs.

Well if it has been ruled unconstitutional or is unenforceable then it's not the law of the land.

Well if it has been ruled unconstitutional or is unenforceable then it's not the law of the land.

They should not have been passed in the first place, especially with them knowing the technology for micro stamping is now available, and that smart guns really aren't very reliable.
Making it so you can only buy those firearms denies citizens their Second Amendment rights, since again, they aren't available.

Well if it has been ruled unconstitutional or is unenforceable then it's not the law of the land.

They should not have been passed in the first place, especially with them knowing the technology for micro stamping is now available, and that smart guns really aren't very reliable.
Making it so you can only buy those firearms denies citizens their Second Amendment rights, since again, they aren't available.

I don't know the specifics of CA law, but if what you're saying is true, then there are no legal gun sales taking place in CA. Is that really what is happening?

Jerry, which Republican politicians are actively doing something about that? And what is their plan to defeat CA's unconstitutional laws?

Well if it has been ruled unconstitutional or is unenforceable then it's not the law of the land.

They should not have been passed in the first place, especially with them knowing the technology for micro stamping is now available, and that smart guns really aren't very reliable.
Making it so you can only buy those firearms denies citizens their Second Amendment rights, since again, they aren't available.

I don't know the specifics of CA law, but if what you're saying is true, then there are no legal gun sales taking place in CA. Is that really what is happening?

Here's an article form the San Jose Mercury News about the record-breaking gun sales in CA in 2015, and while there is a lot of discussion about gun control laws, there is no mention of what you are talking about here. In any case, it doesn't seem like law abiding citizens are having any trouble arming themselves in CA...a simple google search "buy guns California" seems to show lots of options. If, as you seem to be saying, state law now prohibits the legal sale of guns in CA nobody seems to have noticed.

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_29238575/californias-gun-sales-break-records

Abortion rights at stake: Purvi Patel and the fate of pregnant women in Indiana

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/25/abortion_rights_at_stake_purvi_patel_and_the_fate_of_pregnant_women_in_indiana/

Well if it has been ruled unconstitutional or is unenforceable then it's not the law of the land.

They should not have been passed in the first place, especially with them knowing the technology for micro stamping is now available, and that smart guns really aren't very reliable.
Making it so you can only buy those firearms denies citizens their Second Amendment rights, since again, they aren't available.

I don't know the specifics of CA law, but if what you're saying is true, then there are no legal gun sales taking place in CA. Is that really what is happening?

Here's an article form the San Jose Mercury News about the record-breaking gun sales in CA in 2015, and while there is a lot of discussion about gun control laws, there is no mention of what you are talking about here. In any case, it doesn't seem like law abiding citizens are having any trouble arming themselves in CA...a simple google search "buy guns California" seems to show lots of options. If, as you seem to be saying, state law now prohibits the legal sale of guns in CA nobody seems to have noticed.

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_29238575/californias-gun-sales-break-records

Here is a recent article on what is actually being proposed.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-gun-bills-20160519-snap-story.html

Well if it has been ruled unconstitutional or is unenforceable then it's not the law of the land.

They should not have been passed in the first place, especially with them knowing the technology for micro stamping is now available, and that smart guns really aren't very reliable.
Making it so you can only buy those firearms denies citizens their Second Amendment rights, since again, they aren't available.

I don't know the specifics of CA law, but if what you're saying is true, then there are no legal gun sales taking place in CA. Is that really what is happening?

Here's an article form the San Jose Mercury News about the record-breaking gun sales in CA in 2015, and while there is a lot of discussion about gun control laws, there is no mention of what you are talking about here. In any case, it doesn't seem like law abiding citizens are having any trouble arming themselves in CA...a simple google search "buy guns California" seems to show lots of options. If, as you seem to be saying, state law now prohibits the legal sale of guns in CA nobody seems to have noticed.

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_29238575/californias-gun-sales-break-records

Here is a recent article on what is actually being proposed.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-gun-bills-20160519-snap-story.html/blockquote >
Thanks. Obviously those are still proposed laws and not actual laws as of yet, and there is nothing in there about micro stamping or smart guns, so still not sure what to make of Jerry's comments in this thread (to review, Jerry has told us that the law in CA already says that ONLY smart guns and micro stamped guns can be bought/sold in CA, and since neither are available that means by extension that NO guns can currently be bought/sold in CA).

[Edited on 5/25/2016 by gondicar]

 

Well if it has been ruled unconstitutional or is unenforceable then it's not the law of the land.

They should not have been passed in the first place, especially with them knowing the technology for micro stamping is now available, and that smart guns really aren't very reliable.
Making it so you can only buy those firearms denies citizens their Second Amendment rights, since again, they aren't available.

I don't know the specifics of CA law, but if what you're saying is true, then there are no legal gun sales taking place in CA. Is that really what is happening?

Here's an article form the San Jose Mercury News about the record-breaking gun sales in CA in 2015, and while there is a lot of discussion about gun control laws, there is no mention of what you are talking about here. In any case, it doesn't seem like law abiding citizens are having any trouble arming themselves in CA...a simple google search "buy guns California" seems to show lots of options. If, as you seem to be saying, state law now prohibits the legal sale of guns in CA nobody seems to have noticed.

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_29238575/californias-gun-sales-break-records

Here is a recent article on what is actually being proposed.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-gun-bills-20160519-snap-story.html/blockquote >
Thanks. Obviously those are still proposed laws and not actual laws as of yet, and there is nothing in there about micro stamping or smart guns, so still not sure what to make of Jerry's comments in this thread (to review, Jerry has told us that the law in CA already says that ONLY smart guns and micro stamped guns can be bought/sold in CA, and since neither are available that means by extension that NO guns can currently be bought/sold in CA).

[Edited on 5/25/2016 by gondicar]

The microstamping law was signed into law in 2007, if you wish to see the list of "California legal" firearms, go to certguns.doj.ca.gov/
Guns CAN be bought and sold in California, but they must meet the California Certifications. Some firearm manufacturers have decide to not comply with the California rules and will not export to the Republic of California.