Texas to the rescue of our 2nd Amendment rights

[oohrah]

Texas sued other states for how they do their internal business. If SCOTUS had allowed that it would have opened Pandora's box. Would want, say, NJ suing Texas over lack of gun control?

[parabelum]

Texas sued other states for how they do their internal business. If SCOTUS had allowed that it would have opened Pandora's box. Would want, say, NJ suing Texas over lack of gun control?

Texas sued because other states blatantly violated the Constitution of the United States with their internal business as you put it. NJ or any other communist fascists states cannot sue Texas as Texas gun laws follow the Constitution. They could sue Texas to require Texas to set forth LESS restrictions as it relates to 2A (Constitutional carry etc.).
SCOTUS decision to not even allow for arguments to be presented is disturbing and sets a very dangerous precedent for all upcoming elections. This will go down in history as perhaps one of the biggest SCOTUS blunders of our history.

It appears that lawlessness prevailed. You can cheat, burn, steal, urinate on the Constitution and much more it appears. The walls have been breached.

[srothstein]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Time to form a more perfect union.

Interesting that you quoted that line. I had been thinking of the tactics and strategy for secession and was going to suggest that we write our declaration using that same beginning. The list of causes would differ, obviously. But we should start with that line because it is so recognizable to others and it was correct. I would get the declaration written and call our legislature into session on July 1 to ratify it on July 2 and publicly release it on July 4th. This is all part of the psychological warfare we will need. The emotional impact of those dates and that wording will strike a bond with many outside of Texas.

While I keep praying it will not come to this, the time to think of our strategy and tactics is now, before it is forced upon us.

[crazy2medic]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Time to form a more perfect union.

Interesting that you quoted that line. I had been thinking of the tactics and strategy for secession and was going to suggest that we write our declaration using that same beginning. The list of causes would differ, obviously. But we should start with that line because it is so recognizable to others and it was correct. I would get the declaration written and call our legislature into session on July 1 to ratify it on July 2 and publicly release it on July 4th. This is all part of the psychological warfare we will need. The emotional impact of those dates and that wording will strike a bond with many outside of Texas.

While I keep praying it will not come to this, the time to think of our strategy and tactics is now, before it is forced upon us.

I don't want my Grandchildren growing up in a Socialist America! Maybe the people in D.C. need to be shown they really aren't encharge!

[Soccerdad1995]

So the Supreme court has refused to hear a dispute between the states regarding the legitimacy of the Presidential election. They apparently would prefer to have this remain as an open dispute with over 1/3 of the states openly disputing the validity of the electors necessary to anoint Biden as President.

Can there be a more impactful dispute between states than who should be leading the Executive branch?

I guess if a group of states decides to secede and the rest of the states say they cannot, then SCOTUS will also decide that they can't be bothered and would rather let the states just handle it themselves?

[philip964]

https://news.yahoo.com/constitution-ans ... 01597.html

Constitution answer for seditious members congress.

More of that bring us back together.

[Soccerdad1995]

Texas sued other states for how they do their internal business. If SCOTUS had allowed that it would have opened Pandora's box. Would want, say, NJ suing Texas over lack of gun control?

The difference in this case is that the actions of those other states impacted Texas residents directly by potentially changing the outcome of a federal election in an illegal manner. That is completely different than New Jersey being concerned with how Texas enforces gun laws for Texas residents, while they are in Texas.

A better example would be if Texas decided to change the election result for all U.S. House seats that were won by Democrats. Are other states impacted by the composition of the U.S. congress? Or is that none of their business?

The fact remains that this is an open dispute between the states. SCOTUS is the only court that has jurisdiction to settle the case, and they have refused to do so. So the dispute will have to be settled outside of the judicial branch.

[Soccerdad1995]

https://news.yahoo.com/constitution-ans ... 01597.html

Constitution answer for seditious members congress.

More of that bring us back together.

So Pelosi and Biden are ineligible to serve in any National office since both are on record (along with numerous other Dems) saying that Trump is an "illegitimate President"? What about all the Dems who voted to overturn the results of the 2016 Presidential election by trying to impeach Trump with no legitimate basis whatsoever? Should we declare them all ineligible to serve in Congress?

[Paladin]

So the Supreme court has refused to hear a dispute between the states regarding the legitimacy of the Presidential election. They apparently would prefer to have this remain as an open dispute with over 1/3 of the states openly disputing the validity of the electors necessary to anoint Biden as President.

Can there be a more impactful dispute between states than who should be leading the Executive branch?

I guess if a group of states decides to secede and the rest of the states say they cannot, then SCOTUS will also decide that they can't be bothered and would rather let the states just handle it themselves?

UPDATE: 21 States Now Support Texas SCOTUS Lawsuit, 42% of America to Sue 8% of America

So yea, the SCOTUS chose to ignore 42% of the states... probably would have been more than 42% as there were more states added everyday as well as 'New Nevada' and 'New California' in spotlight

[Paladin]

https://news.yahoo.com/constitution-ans ... 01597.html

Constitution answer for seditious members congress.

More of that bring us back together.

Reading that garbage makes me want to throw up.

[philip964]

https://apple.news/ANW2-QEALSUSylbnJfrggZA

USAToday tells us why we lost, Court was conservative, they don’t make stuff up.

[Paladin]

https://apple.news/ANW2-QEALSUSylbnJfrggZA

USAToday tells us why we lost, Court was conservative, they don’t make stuff up.