Blues States banning travel to Indiana is an Act of War

[The2ndAmendment]

not an act of war. I have given you definitions of Act of War, and none of the links even suggest anything resembling your idea of what war is.

I am using John Locke's definition. It's a State of Enmity and Destruction. New York has committed an act to destroy Indiana's economy, since it does not agree with how Indiana chooses to govern itself.

Are you claiming that this is an Act of Peace and Goodwill from New York towards Indiana?

Time for a logic lesson.

Your argument is a textbook example of a false dichotomy.

There are many actions that are neither "acts of war" nor "acts of peace and goodwill".

Are you saying that travel bans are Neutral Acts? That's the only option left.

All Acts are either in Good Faith, Neutral or Hostile.

Now that all three types of actions are presented to you, an example of a Tautology, are you claiming this action is in Good Faith or Neutral?

Tautology:
"a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form."


THIS IS AN ACT OF REPRISAL AGAINST INDIANA (that's how it is phrased) as if INDIANA committed a HOSTILE offense against New York.

 

[bodecea]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

CHAP. III.

Of the State of War.

Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

 

[kiwiman127]

Geez 2ndA, you missed your chance at having a civil war when Arizona was boycotted 1993! And you certainly have a itchy finger.
Personally, I think you are bat shit crazy.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Geez 2ndA, you missed your chance at having a civil war when Arizona was boycotted 1993! And you certainly have a itchy finger.
Personally, I think you are bat shit crazy.

I noticed the word "war" in your signature:

"AT LEAST THE WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS IS GOING WELL!"

Personally, I think you're bat shit crazy!

 

[Pogo]

Geez 2ndA, you missed your chance at having a civil war when Arizona was boycotted 1993! And you certainly have a itchy finger.
Personally, I think you are bat shit crazy.

I noticed the word "war" in your signature:

"AT LEAST THE WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS IS GOING WELL!"

Personally, I think you're bat shit crazy!

Um... your title says ACT OF war.

"War" can be a metaphor. "Act of war" -- not so much.
But hey, if you like siglines............. read this one ↓

 

[kiwiman127]

Geez 2ndA, you missed your chance at having a civil war when Arizona was boycotted 1993! And you certainly have a itchy finger.
Personally, I think you are bat shit crazy.

I noticed the word "war" in your signature:

"AT LEAST THE WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS IS GOING WELL!"

Personally, I think you're bat shit crazy!

 

[Gadawg73]

NASCAR has a ban on Indiana also. Those boys ain't liberals folks. I know. How long I been telling you neanderthals and 2500 year old Jewish law freaks it is time to unload the gay are 2nd class citizens nonsense? This is 2015. Use some common sense for a change instead of ancient emotions you were wrongly taught.

 

[Skylar]

not an act of war. I have given you definitions of Act of War, and none of the links even suggest anything resembling your idea of what war is.

I am using John Locke's definition. It's a State of Enmity and Destruction. New York has committed an act to destroy Indiana's economy, since it does not agree with how Indiana chooses to govern itself.

Are you claiming that this is an Act of Peace and Goodwill from New York towards Indiana?

Time for a logic lesson.

Your argument is a textbook example of a false dichotomy.

There are many actions that are neither "acts of war" nor "acts of peace and goodwill".

Are you saying that travel bans are Neutral Acts? That's the only option left.

All Acts are either in Good Faith, Neutral or Hostile.

Says who? And who says that refusing to spend public funds on unnecessary travel to Indiana is an 'act of war'?

That would you be citing you. And your source sucks.

 

[Skylar]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

CHAP. III.

Of the State of War.

Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

An act of war, probably not, if done by a governmental body of another state, a direct violation of the commerce clause, yep. And Indiana would have cause and a claim against that governmental body. If the loss to Indiana can be quantified then they should pursue a remedy in federal court.

How is it a violation of the commerce clause? What portion of the commerce clause mandates public funds be spent on unnecesssary travel to Indiana?

Because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

 

[Skylar]

I guess I see the problem. When people say war, the left immediately thinks we're talking a 'hot war' with guns and blood...unless its republians and women.....then their made up fantasies become all out aggression against women.

I have to wonder at the sanity of the progressive ideology.

Ah, so when you say 'war', you don't actually mean war.

As I said.......excuses for why you won't ever have to fight. There's nothing else to your 'new civil war'.

 

[Skylar]

What? Not a member of the original ACC? Really, what? That makes it OK then? Os it's OK for New York to act as a sovereign nation and commit an Act of War against Indiana, because New York was part of the original ACC?

What 'act of war'? Again, you're just making this shit up as you go along.

 

[OKTexas]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

CHAP. III.

Of the State of War.

Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

An act of war, probably not, if done by a governmental body of another state, a direct violation of the commerce clause, yep. And Indiana would have cause and a claim against that governmental body. If the loss to Indiana can be quantified then they should pursue a remedy in federal court.

How is it a violation of the commerce clause? What portion of the commerce clause mandates public funds be spent on unnecesssary travel to Indiana?

Because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

If it's unnecessary to begin with what would be the purpose of spending public funds to go in the first place, so what are they threatening to withhold? Nothing?

And no I didn't make anything up, one of the purposes of the commerce clause to keep trade regular among the various States. If a State embargoes goods from another State or prohibits travel to that State then they are interfering with regular commerce. If the embargoed State can prove harm then they have cause for a federal court action.

 

[Skylar]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

CHAP. III.

Of the State of War.

Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

An act of war, probably not, if done by a governmental body of another state, a direct violation of the commerce clause, yep. And Indiana would have cause and a claim against that governmental body. If the loss to Indiana can be quantified then they should pursue a remedy in federal court.

How is it a violation of the commerce clause? What portion of the commerce clause mandates public funds be spent on unnecesssary travel to Indiana?

Because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

If it's unnecessary to begin with what would be the purpose of spending public funds to go in the first place, so what are they threatening to withhold? Nothing?

So how can 'nothing' be a violation of the commerce clause?

And no I didn't make anything up, one of the purposes of the commerce clause to keep trade regular among the various States.

Then cite the portion of the commerce clause that mandates public funds be spent on unnecceassary travel between states.

I'll even help you. Here's the constitution. Just cut and paste the portion of the constitution that prevents it. Or even mentions it.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

If its in there, you'll find this remarkably simple. If you're making this shit up as you go along....its gonna be slightly more difficult.

If a State embargoes goods from another State or prohibits travel to that State then they are interfering with regular commerce. If the embargoed State can prove harm then they have cause for a federal court action.

What 'embargo' are you referring to? There's no limit to trade between NY and Indiana. No limit to travel. Anyone can go anywhere and do anything. There's simply no public funds spent on unnecessary travel. And there's no mandate in the commerce clause for public funds to be spent on unnecessary travel to any state.

Making a violation of the commerce clause on the grounds of NY action in this case a literal impossibility.

 

[Montrovant]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

CHAP. III.

Of the State of War.

Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

An act of war, probably not, if done by a governmental body of another state, a direct violation of the commerce clause, yep. And Indiana would have cause and a claim against that governmental body. If the loss to Indiana can be quantified then they should pursue a remedy in federal court.

How is it a violation of the commerce clause? What portion of the commerce clause mandates public funds be spent on unnecesssary travel to Indiana?

Because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

If it's unnecessary to begin with what would be the purpose of spending public funds to go in the first place, so what are they threatening to withhold? Nothing?

And no I didn't make anything up, one of the purposes of the commerce clause to keep trade regular among the various States. If a State embargoes goods from another State or prohibits travel to that State then they are interfering with regular commerce. If the embargoed State can prove harm then they have cause for a federal court action.

There could be plenty of instances where travel to Indiana from New York, for example, might occur but not be necessary to the functioning of the state of NY or its government. Conferences, research studies, joint training of some sort amongst law enforcement agencies, etc. I assume that is the kind of thing on which public funds can not be spent.

That is an entirely different thing from an embargo of Indiana. Has any state prevented private citizens or companies from doing business with or traveling to Indiana?

 

[OKTexas]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

CHAP. III.

Of the State of War.

Sec. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

An act of war, probably not, if done by a governmental body of another state, a direct violation of the commerce clause, yep. And Indiana would have cause and a claim against that governmental body. If the loss to Indiana can be quantified then they should pursue a remedy in federal court.

How is it a violation of the commerce clause? What portion of the commerce clause mandates public funds be spent on unnecesssary travel to Indiana?

Because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

If it's unnecessary to begin with what would be the purpose of spending public funds to go in the first place, so what are they threatening to withhold? Nothing?

And no I didn't make anything up, one of the purposes of the commerce clause to keep trade regular among the various States. If a State embargoes goods from another State or prohibits travel to that State then they are interfering with regular commerce. If the embargoed State can prove harm then they have cause for a federal court action.

There could be plenty of instances where travel to Indiana from New York, for example, might occur but not be necessary to the functioning of the state of NY or its government. Conferences, research studies, joint training of some sort amongst law enforcement agencies, etc. I assume that is the kind of thing on which public funds can not be spent.

That is an entirely different thing from an embargo of Indiana. Has any state prevented private citizens or companies from doing business with or traveling to Indiana?

Have you not been following the discussion, private entities don't even figure into the subject.

 

[Skylar]

Travels bans and economic sanctions and trade bans, this was our policy towards Cuba, Iran and many other hostile nations.

Indiana has committed no Act of War against the Blue States, why are the Blue States committing Acts of War against Indiana for how Indiana chooses to govern its own citizenry? This is a one of the States in our Union. These actions are INTENDED and PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be DESIGNED to make INDIANA SUFFER.

If an action with both design and intent to make a state suffer is NOT an Act of War, what is?

Travels bans on States that do not infringe on 1st Amendment Religious Freedom, what's next, trade embargoes and blockades of 2nd Amendment Open Carry States?

Where does this stop?

What is a State of War (according to John Locke)?
John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter 3

An act of war, probably not, if done by a governmental body of another state, a direct violation of the commerce clause, yep. And Indiana would have cause and a claim against that governmental body. If the loss to Indiana can be quantified then they should pursue a remedy in federal court.

How is it a violation of the commerce clause? What portion of the commerce clause mandates public funds be spent on unnecesssary travel to Indiana?

Because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

If it's unnecessary to begin with what would be the purpose of spending public funds to go in the first place, so what are they threatening to withhold? Nothing?

And no I didn't make anything up, one of the purposes of the commerce clause to keep trade regular among the various States. If a State embargoes goods from another State or prohibits travel to that State then they are interfering with regular commerce. If the embargoed State can prove harm then they have cause for a federal court action.

There could be plenty of instances where travel to Indiana from New York, for example, might occur but not be necessary to the functioning of the state of NY or its government. Conferences, research studies, joint training of some sort amongst law enforcement agencies, etc. I assume that is the kind of thing on which public funds can not be spent.

That is an entirely different thing from an embargo of Indiana. Has any state prevented private citizens or companies from doing business with or traveling to Indiana?

Have you not been following the discussion, private entities don't even figure into the subject.

I'm still waiting for you to show us where in the constitution a state is required to spend public funds for unnecessary travel.

No such requirement exists. Making your 'commerce clause' violation an impossibility.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

not an act of war. I have given you definitions of Act of War, and none of the links even suggest anything resembling your idea of what war is.

I am using John Locke's definition. It's a State of Enmity and Destruction. New York has committed an act to destroy Indiana's economy, since it does not agree with how Indiana chooses to govern itself.

Are you claiming that this is an Act of Peace and Goodwill from New York towards Indiana?

Time for a logic lesson.

Your argument is a textbook example of a false dichotomy.

There are many actions that are neither "acts of war" nor "acts of peace and goodwill".

I won't act in peace or goodwill but don't take this as being at war with you I just need you to STFU and bow down to my will as to how you will act. Yep, no war there.

 

[Pogo]

Clearly, when the Colorado Rockies defeat the Florida Marlins it's tantamount to genocide.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

An act of war, probably not, if done by a governmental body of another state, a direct violation of the commerce clause, yep. And Indiana would have cause and a claim against that governmental body. If the loss to Indiana can be quantified then they should pursue a remedy in federal court.

How is it a violation of the commerce clause? What portion of the commerce clause mandates public funds be spent on unnecesssary travel to Indiana?

Because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

If it's unnecessary to begin with what would be the purpose of spending public funds to go in the first place, so what are they threatening to withhold? Nothing?

And no I didn't make anything up, one of the purposes of the commerce clause to keep trade regular among the various States. If a State embargoes goods from another State or prohibits travel to that State then they are interfering with regular commerce. If the embargoed State can prove harm then they have cause for a federal court action.

There could be plenty of instances where travel to Indiana from New York, for example, might occur but not be necessary to the functioning of the state of NY or its government. Conferences, research studies, joint training of some sort amongst law enforcement agencies, etc. I assume that is the kind of thing on which public funds can not be spent.

That is an entirely different thing from an embargo of Indiana. Has any state prevented private citizens or companies from doing business with or traveling to Indiana?

Have you not been following the discussion, private entities don't even figure into the subject.

I'm still waiting for you to show us where in the constitution a state is required to spend public funds for unnecessary travel.

No such requirement exists. Making your 'commerce clause' violation an impossibility.

You left wing assholes expanded the commerce clause to encompass pretty much any interaction that can be conceived yet now you want to ratchet it down? Are you kidding me?

 

[Skylar]

How is it a violation of the commerce clause? What portion of the commerce clause mandates public funds be spent on unnecesssary travel to Indiana?

Because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

If it's unnecessary to begin with what would be the purpose of spending public funds to go in the first place, so what are they threatening to withhold? Nothing?

And no I didn't make anything up, one of the purposes of the commerce clause to keep trade regular among the various States. If a State embargoes goods from another State or prohibits travel to that State then they are interfering with regular commerce. If the embargoed State can prove harm then they have cause for a federal court action.

There could be plenty of instances where travel to Indiana from New York, for example, might occur but not be necessary to the functioning of the state of NY or its government. Conferences, research studies, joint training of some sort amongst law enforcement agencies, etc. I assume that is the kind of thing on which public funds can not be spent.

That is an entirely different thing from an embargo of Indiana. Has any state prevented private citizens or companies from doing business with or traveling to Indiana?

Have you not been following the discussion, private entities don't even figure into the subject.

I'm still waiting for you to show us where in the constitution a state is required to spend public funds for unnecessary travel.

No such requirement exists. Making your 'commerce clause' violation an impossibility.

You left wing assholes expanded the commerce clause to encompass pretty much any interaction that can be conceived yet now you want to ratchet it down? Are you kidding me?

I'm not the one arguing that the commerce clause mandates that states spend public funds on unnecessary travel. You're barking at the wrong 'asshole'.