What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
The North Carolina House, not to be outdone, got in just before the buzzer for a third installment in today's "What Would a Dick Do?"
Click to expand...

Can the state decriminalize what everybody would consider a criminal act as long as the state isn't doing the action and it isn't discriminatory?

Can Texas pass a law that decriminalizes murder, for example, as long as they don't pin it to a suspect classification? I'll take my answer off the air.
 
Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

I think they could as long as there are no federal statutes that apply.
 
Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Sure, but it would not stop the Feds from prosecuting for a civil rights violation (right to life) in the event of some hot Texan-on-Texan violence.
 
Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Yep. And I doubt any federal court including the SC would support that law should it be challenged.
 
Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

LynahFan said:
Sure, but it would not stop the Feds from prosecuting for a civil rights violation (right to life) in the event of some hot Texan-on-Texan violence.
Click to expand...

Until Sessions tells them to hold them so he could drive down and hit them himself
 
Kepler said:
Can the state decriminalize what everybody would consider a criminal act as long as the state isn't doing the action and it isn't discriminatory?

Can Texas pass a law that decriminalizes murder, for example, as long as they don't pin it to a suspect classification? I'll take my answer off the air.
Click to expand...

Sure. States control about 90% of criminal law. They could simply remove all murder laws from the criminal code.
 
Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

unofan said:
Sure. States control about 90% of criminal law. They could simply remove all murder laws from the criminal code.
Click to expand...

Would it be a violation of a person's Constitutional right to be alive?

I'm actually serious. How does that work?
 
Kepler said:
Would it be a violation of a person's Constitutional right to be alive?

I'm actually serious. How does that work?
Click to expand...

Remember, the Constitution (generally) only applies to government actions. So Texas cannot deprive you of life without due process (but it could with due process). But it's silent about whether a private citizen could do the same.

If they simply removed murder from the criminal code, you could argue that the common law prohibition on murder brought over from England would still apply in its place. If they not only removed it but added an affirmative statement that homicide is no longer prohibited as a criminal offense? I don't think there's anything stopping them from doing so.
 
Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

unofan said:
Remember, the Constitution (generally) only applies to government actions. .
Click to expand...

Obviously, but the government of Texas can't pass a law saying a restaurant is allowed to bar a customer on race. Presumably the government of Texas also can't pass a law saying a restaurant is allowed to bar a customer and give no reason, or the racists would just happen to bar every black "for no reason."

My question is, can the government of Texas pass a law saying a private person can kill another private person and give no reason? Is life as much of a protected civil right as eating at a frickin' restaurant?
 
Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

unofan said:
Remember, the Constitution (generally) only applies to government actions. So Texas cannot deprive you of life without due process (but it could with due process). But it's silent about whether a private citizen could do the same.

If they simply removed murder from the criminal code, you could argue that the common law prohibition on murder brought over from England would still apply in its place. If they not only removed it but added an affirmative statement that homicide is no longer prohibited as a criminal offense? I don't think there's anything stopping them from doing so.
Click to expand...
Moving murder into the common law, wouldn't that specific state lose the defined punishments already proscribed from those laws, and the varying degrees of murder?
 
St. Clown said:
Moving murder into the common law, wouldn't that specific state lose the defined punishments already proscribed from those laws, and the varying degrees of murder?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but we're hypothesizing about what would happen if a state removed the statute, so they're already giving up those defined punishments and classifications anyway.
 
Kepler said:
Presumably the government of Texas also can't pass a law saying a restaurant is allowed to bar a customer and give no reason, or the racists would just happen to bar every black "for no reason."
Click to expand...

Sure it could. That's exactly how at will employment works. And honestly how current public accommodation law works, too: you have the right to deny service, it just can't be for an illegal reason.

My question is, can the government of Texas pass a law saying a private person can kill another private person and give no reason? Is life as much of a protected civil right as eating at a frickin' restaurant?
Click to expand...

The devil is in the details. If you're asking if they could decriminalize conduct, clearly yes, states do that all the time with lesser crimes like pot possession. Can they affirmatively state that killing others is not only permitted but encouraged? Probably not, because then they're engaging in a state action by encouraging it.
 
Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

I posted this in the abortion thread but I'll post the updated mess here:

Alaska lawmaker asserts rural women get pregnant so they can get free travel for abortions.

This dbag is now refusing to apologize and retract his false, racist statement, blames the media, and now faces censure by the Legislature. Also if you guessed if he was from Wasilla and cast the lone no votes on measures honoring African-American soldiers who built the Alaska Highway and the first Alaska Native Speaker of the House you'd be correct.
 
Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Jimjamesak said:
I posted this in the abortion thread but I'll post the updated mess here:

Alaska lawmaker asserts rural women get pregnant so they can get free travel for abortions.

This dbag is now refusing to apologize and retract his false, racist statement, blames the media, and now faces censure by the Legislature. Also if you guessed if he was from Wasilla and cast the lone no votes on measures honoring African-American soldiers who built the Alaska Highway and the first Alaska Native Speaker of the House you'd be correct.
Click to expand...

Well, he'd only be their second village idiot.
 
Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

Are we sure he's not Joe?
 
Re: The States. It's 10th Amendment or bust!

This jackwagon again.

But, for Engler’s fellow Republican Rick Brattin, discriminating against the LGBTQ community isn’t just a legal matter—it’s a universally held religious truism. Because, Brattin explained, “When you look at the tenets of religion, of the Bible, of the Qu’ran, of other religions, there is a distinction between homosexuality and just being a human being.”
Click to expand...

Name sound familiar?

This is hardly Brattin’s first brush with ultra-conservative infamy. In 2014, he introduced legislation that would have required women to get the father of their unborn child’s written permission to have an abortion—except in cases of “legitimate rape.”
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top