Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you don't like Government Health Care then you can't like this law either.Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
Governments shouldn't mandate anything!
I agree with you.
Fuck speed laws.
Fuck safety.
Fuck clean air and clean water.
Fuck safe food.
Fuck bridge and road inspection.
I will do what I want, when I want. That's the America I want to live in!!!!
Governors Highway Safety Association: Deaths Don't Matter, Only Safety Regs - Hit & Run : Reason MagazineMany traffic safety groups such as the Governors Highway Safety Association argue that such comparisons don't accurately reflect how safe a state's roads are. A better measure, they say, is whether states have enacted proven safety enhancements such as motorcycle helmet laws and primary seat belt laws, which allow police to stop motorists solely for being unbuckled. [...]Judith Stone, president of Washington, D.C.-based Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety, says the group does not consider fatalities when issuing its annual report card on states. "We look at laws and whether they've been passed," Stone says.Advocates of stronger laws say it's difficult to persuade a state such as New Hampshire, which has no seat belt or motorcycle helmet laws, to enact such rules when its death rate is below the U.S. average. "States like ... New Hampshire could certainly save more lives by passing stronger laws," says governors safety association spokesman Jonathan Adkins. "Legislators note these states have relatively low fatality rates and tend not to see the benefit in passing stronger laws."
No. To anyone with even a child's grasp of the language, it does no such thing.So you agree that you are wrong and that I am right. Thank you.
You may not provide the cite(s) I asked for.
No I agree that you are a fucking idiot who is playing semantics. It in effect grants you rights
The rights pre-exist the formation of government. The amendments protect those rights from action against them by the government. There's no grant of the rights in any way shape or form.
Not sure where you went to school - but you need to look into getting your money back.
Still waiting for that cite.
I'm sorry - your statement is wrong. Nothing you can do or say will change that.LOL like I said Semantics. You are playing a silly little game of Semantics. The End result is the same, Granted or Guaranteed, The end result is you have rights.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 49 L.Ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. 358Oh WOW. Where to begin?That is true, but the SCOUS has already decided that compulsory vaccination did not deprive a citizen of liberty granted by the United States Constitution.The necessary and proper clause is not a grant of power to do whatever you want.
1: Cite?
2: Not a -single- liberty is granted to a single person by the US constitution.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 49 L.Ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. 358Oh WOW. Where to begin?That is true, but the SCOUS has already decided that compulsory vaccination did not deprive a citizen of liberty granted by the United States Constitution.
1: Cite?
2: Not a -single- liberty is granted to a single person by the US constitution.
If you believe that the government has the power to compel people to buy health insurance, then you have no way to argue that the government does not have the power to compel people to buy a gun.I find it somewhat amusing that the people who so totally hate the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and its nanny-statism, are more than happy to give that same kind of power to the state governments (or even more incomprensibly, to corporations!)
If you believe that the government has the power to compel people to buy health insurance, then you have no way to argue that the government does not have the power to compel people to buy a gun.I find it somewhat amusing that the people who so totally hate the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and its nanny-statism, are more than happy to give that same kind of power to the state governments (or even more incomprensibly, to corporations!)
Its really that simple.
The decision did not say that ONLY the state could compel vaccinations, it said compulsory vaccinations did not violate the Constitution of the US. So if compulsory vaccinations are Constitutional, why can't the federal government require them?Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 49 L.Ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. 358Oh WOW. Where to begin?
1: Cite?
2: Not a -single- liberty is granted to a single person by the US constitution.
Yes - the court upheld the authority of states to pass compulsory vaccination laws.
-This has nothing to do wuth the FEDERAL power to compell vaccinations, the issue at hand
-This is no way says anything about rights granted by the US constitution
Verdict: Fail.
The decision did not say that ONLY the state could compel vaccinations, it said compulsory vaccinations BY A STATE did not violate the Constitution of the US.Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 49 L.Ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. 358
Yes - the court upheld the authority of states to pass compulsory vaccination laws.
-This has nothing to do wuth the FEDERAL power to compell vaccinations, the issue at hand
-This is no way says anything about rights granted by the US constitution
Verdict: Fail.
Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.comBill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
Except it's the authors of the bill who are falsely arguing that the government does not have the power to compel people to buy a gun. They have as much power to compel people to buy a gun as they have to compel people to get vaccinated!!!If you believe that the government has the power to compel people to buy health insurance, then you have no way to argue that the government does not have the power to compel people to buy a gun.I find it somewhat amusing that the people who so totally hate the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and its nanny-statism, are more than happy to give that same kind of power to the state governments (or even more incomprensibly, to corporations!)
Its really that simple.
The measure is known as an act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.
Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.
Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance, he said.
You do know it is a violation of the rules of this messageboard to alter a poster's posts, don't you?The decision did not say that ONLY the state could compel vaccinations, it said compulsory vaccinations BY A STATE did not violate the Constitution of the US.Yes - the court upheld the authority of states to pass compulsory vaccination laws.
-This has nothing to do wuth the FEDERAL power to compell vaccinations, the issue at hand
-This is no way says anything about rights granted by the US constitution
Verdict: Fail.
See corrected, in bold.
That a state can do so and not violate the US constitution in no way illustrates that the federal government has the power to make such compulsions.
:shrug:
Yes, I know I'm right. Thank you, but you didn't need to tell me.You do know it is a violation of the rules of this messageboard to alter a poster's posts, don't you?The decision did not say that ONLY the state could compel vaccinations, it said compulsory vaccinations BY A STATE did not violate the Constitution of the US.
See corrected, in bold.
That a state can do so and not violate the US constitution in no way illustrates that the federal government has the power to make such compulsions.
:shrug:
Thank you for putting your lack of education on display for all of us to see.Nowhere in the ruling was it said it was Constitutional ONLY because it was a state law. SCOTUS ruled that compulsory vaccination did not deprive a citizen of liberty granted by the United States Constitution.
That certainly seems broad enough to include the federal government too!
The court decided that the power did not violate the Constitution, not who wielded the power.Yes, I know I'm right. Thank you, but you didn't need to tell me.You do know it is a violation of the rules of this messageboard to alter a poster's posts, don't you?See corrected, in bold.
That a state can do so and not violate the US constitution in no way illustrates that the federal government has the power to make such compulsions.
:shrug:
Thank you for putting your lack of education on display for all of us to see.Nowhere in the ruling was it said it was Constitutional ONLY because it was a state law. SCOTUS ruled that compulsory vaccination did not deprive a citizen of liberty granted by the United States Constitution.
That certainly seems broad enough to include the federal government too!
First, you continue to be wrong - no rights are provided to the people by the US constituion.
You are apparently happy to be wrong about this, and you enjoy chosing to be wrong.
Now then...
A state's powers are granted to it by its constitution.
The question in the case whas not the power granted to the state but if that power violated any rights protected by the US constitution. The court decided that this power did not violate any of the rights protected by the US constitution.
This in no way indicates that the US constitution gives a similar power to the US government, and as such, in no way supports the idea that the Federal government can create such compulsions; the case did not have anything to do with an action of the federal government and so cannot be used to argue that the federal government has any such power.
So.. your cite means nothing, You still fail.
And, as I said:The court decided that the power did not violate the Constitution, not who wielded the power. Edited by Intense. Do Not Change Quotes
stop altering my posts!!!!! Restoredand, as i said:the court decided that the power did not violate the constitution, not who wielded the power.
This in no way supports the argument that the federal government has that power as well.
Your cite means nothing, you continue to fail.
Stop being wrong. We do Not Change Quotes Here.stop altering my posts!!!!!and, as i said:the court decided that the power did not violate the constitution, not who wielded the power.Edited/Restored
This in no way supports the argument that the federal government has that power as well.
Your cite means nothing, you continue to fail.
If I was wrong YOU wouldn't have to put YOUR WORDS in my posts!!!Stop being wrong.stop altering my posts!!!!!and, as i said:
This in no way supports the argument that the federal government has that power as well.
Your cite means nothing, you continue to fail.
The words I added to your posts made them accurate, so that they were worth a response - its not MY fault you don't know what you're talking about.If I was wrong YOU wouldn't have to put YOUR WORDS in my posts!!!Stop being wrong.stop altering my posts!!!!!
A typical CON$ervoFascist rationalization, it's not YOUR fault YOU altered my posts.The words I added to your posts made them accurate, so that they were worth a response - its not MY fault you don't know what you're talking about.If I was wrong YOU wouldn't have to put YOUR WORDS in my posts!!!Stop being wrong.
