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
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
quote:

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.
He’s been coaching in Louisiana?
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.
My understanding is that Mississippi State has decided not to compete this year.
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.
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.
Black freedmen were restricted from gun ownership in almost every state.
quote:

but these things you say could happen didn't really happen. So how can that have ever been in the intent?
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
quote:

Are you saying there were laws that prevented citizens from owning them and/or regulated what they could own?
Yes
quote:

I don't think it was applied and done the way you are claiming, or that it was actual intent.
You’re the only one who thinks this. Go read a book.
quote:

I guess it's just coincidence none of this really happened in practice.
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.

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.
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.
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
Here is the text of the 10th Amendment:
quote:

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
Let’s break it down.
quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution
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.
quote:

nor prohibited by it to the States
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:
- 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:

are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
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.

Notably, the bill of rights is not applied to the states here. Hope this helps.
quote:

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.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that you don’t understand my position at all.
quote:

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.
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.

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.