AllbyMyRelf
| Favorite team: | Mississippi St. |
| Location: | Virginia |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | Economics |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 3985 |
| Registered on: | 11/1/2014 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Nebraska no longer a core 8 blue blood….
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 11/14/25 at 4:52 pm to molardog1
UGA fan discovers ChatGPT
re: Amy Schumer, who encouraged "body positivity", is now slimmed down
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 11/14/25 at 12:24 pm to tiggerthetooth
She found out recently that she had cushings due to corticosteroid use. Once she got the diagnosis, she addressed it and she slimmed back down as she recovered from cushings.
re: Thank God for Mississippi
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 11/14/25 at 8:50 am to TexasAg13
quote:He’s been coaching in Louisiana?
I'm shocked he's lived in a state with the highest poverty rate, worst literacy rate, and worst healthcare system as long as he has.
re: TV ratings appear to be down massively
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 11/12/25 at 11:56 am to theballguy
Yeah, I used to be a rabid fan. I honestly just don’t care much anymore.
I’m sure there are lots of contributing reasons for me—young kids, team isn’t very competitive, I moved out of state, etc., but the professionalization is a big part too.
I’m sure there are lots of contributing reasons for me—young kids, team isn’t very competitive, I moved out of state, etc., but the professionalization is a big part too.
re: So how is Mississippi State looking this Saturday night?
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 11/12/25 at 11:54 am to MizzouTrue
My understanding is that Mississippi State has decided not to compete this year.
re: World first: Andrzej Bargiel skied down Everest without bottled oxygen
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 11/9/25 at 9:01 am to Bobby OG Johnson
That’s pretty cool
re: Why is it socially acceptable to be “terrible with names”?
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 11/8/25 at 9:01 am to philly444
It’s not. People say this all the time, but if you’re in an important social situation, you must remember names.
If you don’t remember someone’s name, you have soured the (potential) relationship.
If you don’t remember someone’s name, you have soured the (potential) relationship.
re: What are your go to for comfortable office shoes?
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 11/7/25 at 9:33 am to geauxtigers87
Allen Edmonds
re: What does it say that Freeze was so much more successful at Ole Miss than Auburn?
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 11/2/25 at 3:45 pm to Fleurs
Different recruiting era
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 3:18 pm to 3down10
Yup. Constitution is a document that gives limited powers to the federal government. Only in very few ways does it restrict the power of the states. The state constitutions were the documents that limited the powers of the states.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 3:16 pm to 3down10
Black freedmen were restricted from gun ownership in almost every state.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:58 pm to 3down10
quote:The intent I’m describing wasn’t that citizens should be unfree at some federal level, rather, the intent I’m describing is that the bill of rights was only intended to restrain the federal government
but these things you say could happen didn't really happen. So how can that have ever been in the intent?
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:55 pm to 3down10
quote:Yes
Are you saying there were laws that prevented citizens from owning them and/or regulated what they could own?
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:49 pm to 3down10
quote:You’re the only one who thinks this. Go read a book.
I don't think it was applied and done the way you are claiming, or that it was actual intent.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:37 pm to 3down10
quote:Most of it did not happen in practice because the States are the ones who ratified the constitution. In other words, the State constitutions already had the same beliefs they were enshrining in the constitution. Of course they wouldn’t be radically different.
I guess it's just coincidence none of this really happened in practice.
But some of it did happen. States did have laws on speech, on religion, and on guns. All you have to do is Google this to learn more.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:30 pm to 3down10
I’m sorry that you’re wrong and that you’re taking it this hard. If it helps, the 14th amendment was ratified and you don’t have to worry about these things.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:27 pm to 3down10
1. No, “right of the people” doesn’t mean “right of the state,” but it means a federal noninterference in a right the people already possessed in the context of maintaining a militia.
2. A state could (and some did) have established religions, restrict speech, or regulate the press, unless their own state constitutions forbade it.
3. Only applied to federal troops. A state government could, theoretically, pass a law allowing quartering of its militia in private homes unless prohibited by its own constitution.
4. State police could conduct unreasonable searches under federal law, though many state constitutions adopted similar protections independently.
5. Only federal prosecutions. States could have different standards for double jeopardy, grand juries, and self-incrimination.
6. States could — in theory — hold people indefinitely or deny jury trials unless their own constitutions prohibited it.
ETA: This is confirmed with the 1833 SCOTUS case Barron v. Baltimore
2. A state could (and some did) have established religions, restrict speech, or regulate the press, unless their own state constitutions forbade it.
3. Only applied to federal troops. A state government could, theoretically, pass a law allowing quartering of its militia in private homes unless prohibited by its own constitution.
4. State police could conduct unreasonable searches under federal law, though many state constitutions adopted similar protections independently.
5. Only federal prosecutions. States could have different standards for double jeopardy, grand juries, and self-incrimination.
6. States could — in theory — hold people indefinitely or deny jury trials unless their own constitutions prohibited it.
ETA: This is confirmed with the 1833 SCOTUS case Barron v. Baltimore
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 2:21 pm to 3down10
Here is the text of the 10th Amendment:
- enter into treaties/ alliances
- coin money or emit bills of credit
- pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws
- impair obligations of contracts
- lay duties on imports
Notably, the bill of rights is not applied to the states here. Hope this helps.
quote:Let’s break it down.
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
quote:In this clause “United States means the federal government, and the powers are the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution like the spending power, power to regulate interstate commerce, etc. So this clause deals with powers that are not listed in the constitution as having been given to the federal government.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution
quote:The “it” here refers to the Constitution. So this clause refers to a list of powers that the constitution explicitly says States do not have. These are outlined in Article 1, Section 10:
nor prohibited by it to the States
- enter into treaties/ alliances
- coin money or emit bills of credit
- pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws
- impair obligations of contracts
- lay duties on imports
quote:So everything that was not delegated to the federal government or expressly prohibited for the states resides with the states. If the states don’t touch it, then with the people.
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Notably, the bill of rights is not applied to the states here. Hope this helps.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 1:54 pm to 3down10
quote:It’s becoming increasingly clear that you don’t understand my position at all.
The general welfare is defined in the constitution as the amendments themselves, and the general welfare clause gives congress permission to uphold them. It does not mean any bullshite you can claim is "for the good of the people". You sound like a communist who claims the state is the people. Jefferson argued specifically against your interpretation correctly saying that such a thing would render the Constitutions specific limits meaningless, effectively giving Congress unlimited power.
re: Who are the substantive conservative influencers/minds in 2025
Posted by AllbyMyRelf on 10/30/25 at 1:53 pm to 3down10
quote:You’re confused by the structure. The constitution (as originally written/ understood, not as interpreted by leftist New Deal judges) gave the federal government enumerated powers. These were the only powers the federal government had. As you stated, everything else belonged to the state under the 10th amendment. Everything not regulated by the state then belonged to the people. I.e., if neither the state nor the federal government had the power to regulate it, then that authority/ discretion was left to the individual.
This is flat out lie because the 10th amendment directly states that those which were not prohibited were the only ones given by the states. The fact states were getting away with things and the supreme court ruled in such a way doesn't mean that's how it was ever supposed to work. “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.” Because if the states are allowed to stomp on those rights, then you don't have them at all to being with. I don't know about you, buy my rights are God given.
The bill of rights were limitations on the federal government. They were clarifications that notwithstanding any powers given to the federal government in the constitution, the federal government couldn’t violate that bill of rights.
Importantly, however, the bill of rights did not apply to the states. A state constitution could regulate speech or say you had to be a specific religion to hold office, or say who couldn’t own a gun.
It wasn’t until the 14th amendment that the bill of rights were incorporated to the states. This is called incorporation doctrine.
Popular
0












