MTG Calls for Red State Secession

You realize the thing I mentioned already exists just in a more limited scope right? Many places you can’t move today and vote tomorrow.

This doesn’t violate the privileges and immunities clause to simply establish a process for citizenship. Clearly constitutional law isn’t your arena

Both 2 and 5 years would be patently unconstitutional
 
Just one question, Luther, do you consider an abortion for no other reason than the woman doesn't want the baby to be "women's healthcare"?
It can certainly come under the umbrella of that term.
But I've always been a big proponent of doing more to prevent unwanted pregnancies before......it's obviously the best way to reduce the number of abortions.
 
Talking about and displaying your weapon in a place built for diplomacy aren't the same thing. And you know that, even if you don't want to know it. Heh, heh.
He floats through the air
With the greatest of ease
The daring young man
On the flying trapeze

JBs comments were far from a diplomacy standpoint. If it applies to one, it’s the same for the other.
 
Not a child. It's a fetus.

Prioritizing is nonsense? How so? Your way forces someone to allow a parasitic relationship and forces that person to accept risks they do not wish to accept for 9 months. Financial risks and risks to health up to and including death.

Post birth it's a fetus? WTF are you talking about?

The rest of what you said has nothing to do with this conversation. You mentioned inducing labor and then allowing the child to die. I'm not opposing the first part (inducing labor) so idk what you're talking about that I'm forcing women to do anything or accept any risks. But I am concerned with the 2nd part.

Once born that's a "child". Why would we just allow the child to die? That's my issue and an issue you have failed to address in roughly 50 posts.
 
Last edited:
Should each city/county/neighborhood get to decide if they want to remain part of the seceding state?

I'd say no, that the state would move as a whole, but I do support a counties right to leave a state. Especially if they border another state that wants to accept them.

Edit: County's
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
JBs comments were far from a diplomacy standpoint. If it applies to one, it’s the same for the other.

Burp! Hiccup. I never noticed. But JB is nice, though. Beyond that, guns in legislative offices is insanity. In MYG case, just peacocking.
1677017535113.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PEPPERJAX
Post birth it's a fetus? WTF are you talking about?

The rest of what you said has nothing to do with this conversation. You mentioned inducing labor and then allowing the child to die. I'm not opposing the first part (inducing labor) so idk what you're talking about that I'm forcing women to do anything or accept any risks. But I am concerned with the 2nd part.

Once born that's a "child". Why would we just allow the child to die? That's my issue and an issue you have failed to address in roughly 50 posts.

Still a fetus.

I am not going to call it a child until it is viable.
 
no, my arbitrary line in the sand is viability.

Are you attempting to set a record for the number of times someone has ignored the same question here?

Child/fetus, whatever you want to call it. If possible to save it, why would you not?
 
Based on.....

See below Forrest (Section 1 of the 14th Amendment):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In the 1990s, SCOTUS said a 1-year residency requirement to get welfare violated the above (Saens v. Roe). And you think a 2-year to 5-year no-vote rule for new residents would pass constitutional muster? There is no compelling state interest in such a draconian restriction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
See below Forrest (Section 1 of the 14th Amendment):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In the 1990s, SCOTUS said a 1-year residency requirement to get welfare violated the above (Saens v. Roe). And you think a 2-year to 5-year no-vote rule for new residents would pass constitutional muster? There is no compelling state interest in such a draconian restriction.

Alright, fair enough. I’m open to 11-29
 
See below Forrest (Section 1 of the 14th Amendment):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In the 1990s, SCOTUS said a 1-year residency requirement to get welfare violated the above (Saens v. Roe). And you think a 2-year to 5-year no-vote rule for new residents would pass constitutional muster? There is no compelling state interest in such a draconian restriction.

This section is violated every day and is basically void.
 
Serious Question :

Who gets Wisconsin, under Marjorie Taylor Greene's scenario? The Red or the Blue states?

Their Governor is a Democrat (Tony Evers), but their Senators are split (Tammy Baldwin is a Democrat and Ron Johnson is a Republican) .... and Republicans hold the majority in the state legislature by a 20-12 margin. In 2016, Donald Trump won Wisconsin, but in 2020, Joe Biden won it.

I can't help but get the feeling that MTG's secession plan wasn't very well thought out.
 
Serious Question :

Who gets Wisconsin, under Marjorie Taylor Greene's scenario? The Red or the Blue states?

Their Governor is a Democrat (Tony Evers), but their Senators are split (Tammy Baldwin is a Democrat and Ron Johnson is a Republican) .... and Republicans hold the majority in the state legislature by a 20-12 margin. In 2016, Donald Trump won Wisconsin, but in 2020, Joe Biden won it.

I can't help but get the feeling that MTG's secession plan wasn't very well thought out.
MTG doesn’t plan anything well.
 
Serious Question :

Who gets Wisconsin, under Marjorie Taylor Greene's scenario? The Red or the Blue states?

Their Governor is a Democrat (Tony Evers), but their Senators are split (Tammy Baldwin is a Democrat and Ron Johnson is a Republican) .... and Republicans hold the majority in the state legislature by a 20-12 margin. In 2016, Donald Trump won Wisconsin, but in 2020, Joe Biden won it.

I can't help but get the feeling that MTG's secession plan wasn't very well thought out.

Have you ever been there? Would probably be a fight not to get it.
 

VN Store



Back
Top