We stand with the second Amendment no matter what...

[bluefirecorp_]

The Contract Clause appears in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. The clause prohibits a State from passing any law that “impairs the obligation of contracts” or “makes any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts”. It states:

    "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

States aren't allowed to entire foreign treaties? Alright.

You do know "state" isn't "the state" but actual member states of the union? Right?

So, states can't make currencies; "Texas Dollars" aren't a thing.

But I think you mean this section:

IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 9, cl. 1, declares that no state shall "pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts."
     2. Contracts, when considered in relation to their effects, are executed, that is, by transfer of the possession of the thing contracted for; or they are executory, which gives only a right of action for the subject of the contract. Contracts are also express or implied. The constitution makes no distinction between one class of contracts and the other. 6 Cranch, 135; 7 Cranch, 164.
     3. The obligation of a contract here spoken of is a legal, not a mere moral obligation; it is the law which binds the party to perform his undertaking. The obligation does not inhere or subsist in the contract itself, proprio vigore, but in the law applicable to the contract. 4 Wheat. R. 197; 12 Wheat. R. 318; and. this law is not the universal law of nations, but it is the law of the state where the contract is made. 12 Wheat. R. 213. Any law which enlarges, abridges, or in any manner changes the intention of the parties, resulting from the stipulations in the contract, necessarily impairs it. 12 Wheat. 256; Id. 327; 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 319; 8 Wheat. 84; 4 Wheat. 197.
     4. The constitution forbids the states to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, but there is nothing in that instrument which prohibits Congress from passing such a law. Pet. C. C. R. 322. Vide, generally, Story on the Const. Sec. 1368 to 1891 Serg. Const. Law, 356; Rawle on the Const. h.t.; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t.; 10 Am. Jur. 273-297.

Please try again

And when they pass such a law, it is for them. It isn't for people who haven't contracted with them to be under that law. Incidentally, the Federal Government is a state.

Someone lacks the ability to read. I highlighted with "glow".

Don't argue here; gain the accreditation and argue here;  Pet. C. C. R. 322. Vide, generally, Story on the Const. Sec. 1368 to 1891 Serg. Const. Law, 356; Rawle on the Const. h.t.; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t.; 10 Am. Jur. 273-297.

Someone lacks the ability to read. I highlighted with "glow".

Yall need glasses?

[1714834698]

1714834698

[1714834698]

1714834698

[1714834698]

1714834698

[TECSHARE]

Again, you still don't have a damned clue what you are on about and are desperately trying to look smart while doing almost zero work to get there.

If you knew anything about this nation's history, you would know the federal government was designed to be subservient of the states, and was essentially intended to be impotent except for very limited specified powers outlined in the constitution such as national defense. In the framers minds the STATES took authority over the federal government in any power not SPECIFICALLY granted to it within The Constitution.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"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."


"the United States" = The federal government.

[bluefirecorp_]

Again, you still don't have a damned clue what you are on about and are desperately trying to look smart while doing almost zero work to get there.

If you knew anything about this nation's history, you would know the federal government was designed to be subservient of the states, and was essentially intended to be impotent except for very limited specified powers outlined in the constitution such as national defense. In the framers minds the STATES took authority over the federal government in any power not SPECIFICALLY granted to it within The Constitution.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"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."


"the United States" = The federal government.

Uhhh, you're missing a big thing here; see where they're delegated the ability to create law?

See that... uhhh, in pretty much sections 1 to 5? see all those delegations of privileged.

The amendments made a few rules a bit harder to change, but in the end, the constitution was a framework of laws. If you think that we should just go to the constitution, then ya know, that makes murder legal, right? And bam, now you're building your own framework of laws and rules.

Congratz, go build your own fork of a nation rather than trying to PR to .01 ALHPA-build of our nation.

[BADecker]

Someone lacks the ability to read. I highlighted with "glow".

Don't argue here; gain the accreditation and argue here;  Pet. C. C. R. 322. Vide, generally, Story on the Const. Sec. 1368 to 1891 Serg. Const. Law, 356; Rawle on the Const. h.t.; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t.; 10 Am. Jur. 273-297.

Someone lacks the ability to read. I highlighted with "glow".

Yall need glasses?

Y'all need a reading comprehension course?

[bluefirecorp_]

Someone lacks the ability to read. I highlighted with "glow".

Don't argue here; gain the accreditation and argue here;  Pet. C. C. R. 322. Vide, generally, Story on the Const. Sec. 1368 to 1891 Serg. Const. Law, 356; Rawle on the Const. h.t.; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t.; 10 Am. Jur. 273-297.

Someone lacks the ability to read. I highlighted with "glow".

Yall need glasses?

And when they pass such a law, it is for them.

Retardation of a statement

Then again, who doesn't mind not getting murdered, that's a horrible law.

[TECSHARE]

Again, you still don't have a damned clue what you are on about and are desperately trying to look smart while doing almost zero work to get there.

If you knew anything about this nation's history, you would know the federal government was designed to be subservient of the states, and was essentially intended to be impotent except for very limited specified powers outlined in the constitution such as national defense. In the framers minds the STATES took authority over the federal government in any power not SPECIFICALLY granted to it within The Constitution.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"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."


"the United States" = The federal government.

Uhhh, you're missing a big thing here; see where they're delegated the ability to create law?

See that... uhhh, in pretty much sections 1 to 5? see all those delegations of privileged.

The amendments made a few rules a bit harder to change, but in the end, the constitution was a framework of laws. If you think that we should just go to the constitution, then ya know, that makes murder legal, right? And bam, now you're building your own framework of laws and rules.

Congratz, go build your own fork of a nation rather than trying to PR to .01 ALHPA-build of our nation.

FYI Murder is clearly illegal under common law (The Constitution). Please do demonstrate more of your ignorance on the subject.

You are the one who claimed he knew nothing about The Constitution. I verified his statement, then mine, with sources, now you are rambling about the current state of affairs when that was never even the premise. Nice moving goal posts.

[popcorn1]

If Fox news and the likes are saying STOP attacking politicians then why do you have the 2ND Amendment?..

Just think you say no don't give abuse to politicians BUT because of the 2nd Amendment you can shoot a politician ..

Also we in the UK and the USA have hate crimes?  So if i say come near me i will smash your face in now many many people thinks well he is out of order?..

So OK if i now say if anyone tries to hurt me i will shoot you<<Now in the USA this is ok to do BUT not the i will smash your face in..

And the point is in life many many humans do one thing and think it's better than the other thing that they do when it's not..

Like chemical weapons is bad BUT other bombs are not  do you get what i mean   and this is what goes on in POLITICS to make your mind thinks one is alright to do BUT the other thing is bad to do even though they are just as bad as each other..

And this is what POLITICIANS do all the time LIE to make you think one is ok to do but the other is bad when both are just as bad if not worse in many cases ..

So with all the rules people will spin them to suit themselves in many cases all for one thing is the MONIES..always the monies..How many gun sales?..

How much donations to leaders to keep the gun rights from gun sellers?..all about the monies..

One thing about the USA and most places to be honest is most want to become a leader for the monies and power..

Ok so why do people put so much money into asking people to vote for them for ?  why spend a billion dollars to get to be president for a 250k wage ?..

i KNOW WHY  ..All the trappings of power backhanders contracts fame fortune and the last thing the most important thing of all..

MASSIVE COMPANIES   can use the masses for their companies for cheap workers plus pay less taxes plus give the leaders rules to suit them..

Just think if 20 massive companies give 3 billion over to make a leader get in power how much do you thinks they will benefit in the long run over 10 years?..

LESS TAXES can save 1 massive company billions alone but meaning less money for public services OR you borrow then end up a slave debt country..

So what is so hard that 20 massive companies give a leader 3 billion to win an election pocket change considering what they will gain by low taxes PLUS low paid workers..

So how many gun companies give money over to political parties plus get tax breaks?..

POLITICS IN THE USA    IS A GAME   A game of how to make ones self RICH..And a game for the rich business owners to use to make the rules..