Supreme Court Allows the Texas Abortion Law to Remain. California Governor Newsom Plans to Draft a Similar Law to Control Assault Weapons/Ghost Guns

If a state can draft a law shielding itself from lawsuits on abortion, why shouldn't California and other blue states be able to enact gun control laws that cannot be challenged either?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

Unfortunately the Republicans have their own "interpretation" of the constitution.

They have made the constitution a "religious" document. And why they interpret the constitution differently than other political parties.

And I do mean All other political parties! Not just Democrats.

Change the constitution! Not the state laws that the supreme court can overrule!

This is not just a gun or abortion issue! These are constitutional issues that are badly in need of change! So they can't change it!

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@DeWayfarer Constitutional changes require ratification by 3/4 of the states. In our current political climate, that is near impossible, no matter how necessary changes are.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@windinhishair I know that just as much as those involved in slavery or voting for women or any number of constitutional changes.

It can be done though! History has proven it! It's called a "living" document for a reason! 🤷‍♂️

Because it can be changed. It's not closed or concrete! And that is exactly what the Republicans are afraid of. They don't want it known the constitution can be changed. Leaving them without recourse.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@DeWayfarer It can be changed, and should be changed as times and needs change. Unfortunately, I just don't see it changing any time in the foreseeable future.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@windinhishair I believe it should be talked about more and more.

Every time I mention it some republican is severely opposed to it. And unfortunately many Democrats agree, which gives the Republicans credence.

If they are not willing to even talk about it, that is exactly what they are afraid of!

They are afraid of democracy, they want a pure "republic" that they can control!

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@DeWayfarer It makes no sense to be against amending the Constitution, since it has been done 27 times, the last in 1992. On average, the Constitution has been amended every 8.6 years during its lifetime.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@windinhishair name one instance where you are or were opposed? 🤷‍♂️

Please keep in mind the difficulties now every 27 times! We are a bit long over due now!

It should be talked about at the very least!

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@DeWayfarer Amendments are proposed all the time but don't go anywhere. The Equal Rights Amendment came within a couple of states of ratification in the 1970s, but never received enough votes to become an Amendment. The last one of note I can recall being opposed to was the Amendment to outlaw birthright citizenship. I was also against the proposed Amendment to outlaw taxes on refusal to purchase goods and services. That one was intended to invalidate ObamaCare.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@windinhishair I'm just saying to talk about it more and more!

And again name one that was passed!

We are very much long over due! That's thirty years ago the last was passed! Not 8.6 years ago!

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@DeWayfarer I have no problem discussing Amendments. We should have one outlawing gerrymandering and specifying bipartisan or non-partisan commissions for drawing up congressional districts.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@windinhishair kind of vague ideas. We really need a more humanistic approach. Perhaps more of a different conceptual approach rather than something already there.

Something earth changing since it's been that 31 years ago since the last one.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@DeWayfarer Ending gerrymandering would be earth shattering.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@windinhishair not really. Few understand the concept. Earth shaking would be something everyone could understand. Something everyone can say "That's my right" under the such an amendment!

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@DeWayfarer Ending gerrymandering would begin to reverse the severe polarization of political parties, and restore some degree of fairness in both political directions. Whether everyone could understand that is not important.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@windinhishair few understand that though! They need a right they can understand! Without that understanding it's just plain not earth shaking! 🤷‍♂️

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@DeWayfarer I will go with something that actually works and has a significant positive impact. If people are incapable of understanding, that is their problem.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@windinhishair and I would prefer something that in no way would be legalisticly walked all over with by those with the money to do so!

You know that is exactly what would happen since few understand gerrymandering!