Abortion for more background), but whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, you should be offended by the dishonestly named NY "Reproductive Health Act" that the Democrats and Cuomo just passed, and all of its provision. They claim this is about protecting Roe v Wade -- they are liars: it has virtually nothing to do with that.
In 2010 the Obama Administration was violating immigration law, the Constitution, and the oath of office, by ignoring or being lax on immigration. So Arizona passed a law that said they should enforce federal law (that the Obama administration wouldn't), called SB-1070. Democrats and Californian's lost their nut... how dare a state enforce federal law, they said. They called it racist, sexist, xenophovic and homophobic, along with other words they obviously don't know the meaning of.... only California had the same law on their books.
The Green New Deal was a program championed by AOC that confirms everything conservatives have been warning about the Watermelon Environmental Movement: their goal is not to save the planet, but use that to enact communism/socialism in the U.S. And the program proves that with goals like complete nationalizing and destroying the entire oil and airline industry, complete wealth redistribution, 70%+ taxes, and so on.
I love immigrants. I am one. Well, 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrant. (Iranian Dad on one side, Italian Grandma and German Great Grandparents on the other), raised mostly by a British Step-Dad. Many of my friends (now and growing up) and coworkers today (and historically) have been immigrants as well. I've dated immigrants, I taught immigrants, and I hang with immigrants. I love variants in culture, language, food, and people. So if you think I'm against immigrants, you're a moron.That being said, if you think all immigrants are equal, and we should have open borders, your reading comprehension needs work. (I say that because lots of people will read the following, and then claim I'm anti-immigrant.
Abortion is a deeply personal view, and I have no problem with how people come down on it, as long it is thoughtfully decided. But Roe v. Wade is a lot simpler that the position on abortion. Roe v. Wade is about a ruling that invented law from the bench, and whether it was a good ruling or not. While I actually agree with the position (it fits my beliefs), that's not actually how it has been enforced (Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a later and far worse decision, and is how Roe is enforced). But despite agreeing with Roe, everyone with the slightest law background who has looked at the decision, has admitted that it was a lousy ruling, Blackmun totally overreached, and it made the world a worse place.
A sanctuary city is the idea that if someone an illegal alien and they commit many felonies (some violent), the state will not inform the Federal Government that they're in custody, and will release them into the public to avoid them getting rounded up by ICE. So it is a sanctuary for criminal illegal aliens. The state reports Americans who commit crimes to the Fed. California took it a step further and made it a State Law, which lead to a Sanctuary State Backlash : where cities are suing the state to follow federal law, and California taxpayers have to pay both sides lawyers to fight.
A law is the point where you say, "people that don't agree with me, must be punished and have their rights taken away"... either with loss of property (fines/taxes), loss of freedom (imprisonment), or death (if they resist). With that in mind, now think of seatbelt laws: if you don't wear something that 80% of the time will help your safety, and 20% of the time, endanger it, we will steal your property, liberty or kill you... for your own good, of course. Does that sound like a good use of law or government authority?
One of the great contributions to civilization, was the creation of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS : Supreme Court of the United States), in the United States Constitution (as defined in the Judiciary Act of 1789). It was such a good idea, that many other countries have copied it. Even the U.K. got religion and created one in 2009, 220 years after we did. America's Supreme Court was partly inspired by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which is one of the oldest in the world and created with the colonies charter in 1692 -- but of course various courts and Judicial activities far predate that.
The knee-jerk anti-voterID response is, “but Voter Suppression”. While voter suppression is real, and infrequently happens on both sides of the aisle -- it's usually done by not having enough polling places in the right areas, not by checking ID. And you can tell how seriously the Democrats care about it, because in cases where goons in Philadelphia are standing outside a polling station with clubs, presumably to intimidate away anyone not voting how they might prefer, the Obama Administration's DOJ (Democrats), just dropped open-and-closed case, to prevent sending a signal that such voter intimidation/suppression will not be tolerated. It would only be a problem for them if white folks did that.
The purpose of this aimless article isn’t to convince people of any particular solution, it is to meander through the facts, eviscerate the fallacies, and give everyone the data to come to their own conclusions about Voter fraud and VoterID. There are a lot of fallacies and noise about voter fraud and whether voterID (requiring ID at voting places would fix it). I’ll list just a few of the many examples of voter fraud, and reasons for concerns below -- yet, there's are a lot of DNC fronts (media outlets) that claim there’s virtually none. Why the discrepancy? Well the reason is that voter fraud overwhelmingly benefits the Democrats (DNC). If you were them, would you want it to stop? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
🔫 It doesn't matter what you think the law should be, it matters what it says. Politicians, Legislators and Judges all often ignore the rule of law (letter of the law), for sake of what they wish it said. Here's some examples.
If you want to know why gun advocates have a problem with "reasonable" gun laws, you have to look no further than California, and their legislators versions of "reasonable". Not one of these new laws will help in shooting or mass shootings in any way, or gun safety, they only show raw, naked contempt for gun owners and the second amendment, in ways that will hurt the innocent, waste millions of dollars in legal fights, and eventually lose. But that doesn't slow them down from passing them. And that's why the NRA exists, and informed gun owners have contempt for what sounds reasonable to the uninformed.
At the time of the writing, the definition of militia was, "The whole body of civilians, that are NOT part of the regular army”. Since the Guard/Reserves are part of the regular army (or reserves), they are the unorganized militia (which was everyone else). Basically, anyone old enough to defend their home, town or country (that was not in the army already) was the militia.
But even today, the meaning hasn’t changed as much as some think. Some people mistakenly think it means reserves or National Guard (established 1903, and subject to federal control) — but since those didn’t exist at the time of authoring, there is no way it could have been the type of body envisioned by the framers. Today’s legal definition is, the "militia" consists of "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age”, with a few exclusions for medical, mental or job deferments (by their choice) (10 U.S.C. 311 and 32 U.S.C. 313).You don’t have to take my word for it, there are multiple Constitutional rulings and the words of the authors listed below
A good gun law? I'm pleasantly surprised. This law requires mandatory firearm knowledge before legislators can introduce firearm related legislation. What a novel idea!
Microstamping is a form of gun-control. California figures if you can't outlaw something, you can still put impossible regulations on it to illegally achieve the same ends: enter micro-stamping.
The problems are: (1) the technology doesn't exist (2) if it did exist, it's easy to defeat (3) most guns aren't used by their owner, don't eject casings, and were pre-law -- so this can't do anything for crime, but it's a heavy cost/annoyance to gun owners for something that can't get positive results. It's laws like this that prove to the clueful that gun legislators can't be trusted.
California was one of only 10 "May-issue" Conceal and Carry permits states (as opposed to "Shall-Issue"). Which means they can choose to use the "good cause" to set impossible standards that no one other than the politically connected or big police donors, to meet the standards -- thus they violate the intent of the law that is supposed to allow C&C permits (not deny them). Stacked on top of California not having open carry, it means that you have a right to have a gun, you just can't ever take it anywhere in California. And it's been ruled before that such restrictions violate the people's Second Amendment rights. The State's then A.G. (Kamala Harris) doesn't care about victims lives as much as her political career: and she had armed security guards, so that's all that mattered.