Originally Posted by contrails12

I’m not making a stance on the 2nd or any other amendment for that matter. I’m not arguing with whatever it is that you choose to believe.

What I’m saying is that particular parts of the constitution have been viewed differently by authoritative persons over the centuries. That it’s not as plain as some would suggest.

Originally Posted by Baradium

The 2nd amendment hasn't had any other interpretation than for an individual's right until the last 50 or so years. It's viewed easier to try to change the meaning of the constitution than go through the process of changing the constitution itself, although the latter is the intended path and difficult for a reason.

Originally Posted by contrails12

Sure. But the issues are in the Grey areas. So the current SCOTUS precedent is that the 2nd amendment provides for an individuals right to bear arms. So what’s that mean? There are reasonable arguments that range from permitting individuals to own WMD to being as restrictive as regulations that only allow for a musket that can never leave ones personal property.

Not advocating either way. I just get annoyed by the lack of nuance in today’s politics.

Originally Posted by Omniscient

A bunch of constitutional law scholars on here. Who would have guessed it?

Originally Posted by Setopbug

Not only are they wiser to the ways of the world than those of us who might *shudder* hold different opinions, they're going to tell us all about it.

Some of them should start by looking up the actual definition of the word socialism, as nobody but a small fringe are advocating for actual socialism.

California is the nicest place to live in America that I've encountered out of five states I've lived in. Their taxes suck. If you don't like it, don't live there.

Those of us who lived walking distance from the beach were so very interested in your opinion of how to fix our state. Our concern over your complaints almost stopped us from surfing every morning.

Originally Posted by contrails12

So you’re seriously suggesting that it is crystal clear what the framers has in mind when it comes to various individuals liberties and that you can draw a straight line to the present and know exactly the appropriate amount of government regulation that shall be permitted?



Then why bother with a Supreme Court or a legislative branch ?



If those guys were so smart why didn’t they foresee Pilots and just make them dictators since they have all the answers.

Originally Posted by Bluesideup1

This means as more businesses leave there will be less revenue to collect and as more welfare recipients arrive due to it being very generous with other peoples money and a sanctuary State the budget will continue to increase.

And yes thousands of business and people are fleeing California. Most of them are middle class professionals that are tired of paying large amounts of taxes and can do their work anywhere else. As a matter of fact there were 38,000 more people that left California this year than came in.
Over 1,800 companies have left California last year due to incredibly high taxes and onerous government red tape.

When people keep saying stupid thing like it is the 5th largest economy in the world will somehow keep it from going bankrupt. If you spend more than you take in it doesn't matter how large your economy is it will tank.
The fact that California is driving out the middle class will leave only those with a lot of money and no money at all which I find kind of funny due to a large portion of the population of California believes there shouldn't be income inequality yet due to their governance it is one of the states with the highest income inequality in the nation and increasing every year.

Originally Posted by FXLAX

General welfare doesn’t mean what the big government types think it means. If you believe it means that Congress can pass any law that they think is in the general welfare of the country or the people, then you are not understanding history correctly or are ignorant of it. The fact that the authors of the constitution explicitly wrote a list of things that congress can do should be proof enough that they meant to restrict the power of the federal government. You have to remember that this was written at a time where the monarchy essentially had limitless powers. They didn’t like that so much.

Plus, the phrase general welfare is in a section that applies to the power of congress to tax the people in order to pay debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare. Just because it says those two words, doesn’t mean that the rest of the constitution, the enumerated powers clause in this instance, doesn’t apply. So yes, congress can provide for the general welfare so far as the rest of the constitution allows them to.

If none of this is true, there wouldn’t be a need for the 10th amendment.