How does one reverse the downward spiral happening to America?

As in somany other things we tlk bout here, we will have to see what SCOTUS does with Hawaii.

Frankly, I thought the Civil War had settled the question of the primacy of Federl jurisdiction over stste law.

The US high court's rulings in Harler and Buris cases declared that the Second Amendment rights were individual rights . . .and allowed for possession of a firearm in public.

The plaintiff in Hawaii may lose his case, but the court's precedents will be upheld in my opinion.

BTW: The first use of "Come and take it" happened in 485 BC when King Leonides of Sparta so respaded to the demand for surrender issued by Xerxes of Persia as the the three hundred Spartans blocked the pass at Thermopile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe

Now MAGAts think they're the Spartans. lol

Oh...it's spelled "Thermopylae." Seems like folks should know how to spell all the locations they've created for their self-main-character.

Now MAGAts think they're the Spartans. lol

Oh...it's spelled "Thermopylae." Seems like folks should know how to spell all the locations they've created for their self-main-character. Originally Posted by TechPapi

Yeah, yhou are right of course. Thermopile got through.

Spell check and bad vision let me down again.

Andf now to return to Stste's Rights Vs Federalism . . . .Anyone really think SCOTUS will let Hawaii get away with citing "the spirit of Aloha" as a legal justification for suspending a portion of the Bill of Rights?

I thought we resolved this issue after the Civil War... Originally Posted by txdot-guy

As I read the article you posted, I just knew in my heart of hearts it would be a 14th amendment article, even though it started out with a rudimentary review of sorts. It even had little quips, such as:

...Fears that a central government would accumulate too much power and erode state sovereignty persisted, along with the fear that no central authority could govern such a huge expanse of territory...

...The basic structural characteristics of this “more perfect union” formed the basis of the system of American government that continues to the present...

Sadly it did devolve into a 14th amendment classic hat rack for all misplaced hats, scarves, mittens, jackets and all thing social justice. Typical 2L law discussion. I guess it must be an easy A class or a smorgasbord of easy pick'ns. At any rate, let's turn this back to the OP topic with assistance from one Albert Einstein

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them

So a 28th amendment could be used to nullify the 14th, or at least fix it. (See 18th and 21st amendment) or we could go the Constitutional Convention route, but that opens up a huge can of worms and my fear would be the Kommies of America would go bonkers and we would end up in an ugly mess.

Regardless, we cannot move forward using the rationale that we created the problem with, but this Federal overreach is exactly why they had to create the first 10 amendments, not to mention all those Federalist papers to sell the Constitution, aka Federal Republic, idea in the first place. We need to reign in the beast, even if it means it's end.

Yeah, yhou are right of course. Thermopile got through.

Spell check and bad vision let me down again.

Andf now to return to Stste's Rights Vs Federalism . . . .Anyone really think SCOTUS will let Hawaii get away with citing "the spirit of Aloha" as a legal justification for suspending a portion of the Bill of Rights? Originally Posted by ICU 812

That's not what they did and there's a thread all about that. So .... you and the rest of the Spartans should comment there.

...Regardless, we cannot move forward using the rationale that we created the problem with... Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I see where the House of Reps in Georgia has decided to do so with regards to common sense gun control, for example:

Georgia Bill Makes Property Owners Liable for Injuries in Gun-Free Zones

Georgia House Bill 1364 makes property owners liable if a legal concealed carrier is harmed while barred from being armed for self-defense on the owner’s property.
HB 1364 says, “Any lawful weapons carrier who is prohibited from carrying… and who is injured… shall have a cause of action against the person, business or other entity that owns or legally controls such property,” according to 11 Alive...

That's the way to up a thinking game to solve a problem!