No, The Constitution Does Not Give You The Freedom To Travel

LOL I remember when Cali banned travel for state employees, state funded university sports travel to Red state because they didn't like their laws. :auiqs.jpg:
 
LOL I remember when Cali banned travel for state employees, state funded university sports travel to Red state because they didn't like their laws. :auiqs.jpg:

No they didn't.
Well technically, they banned paying for travel to states that hate gay and trans people.....people can still travel to any state they wish -- but the state won't be paying for travel to certain states....


"California Assembly Bill 1887 restricts the use of state funds for travel to now 18 states. Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia, Florida and North Dakota were added earlier this year. A number of students in the California State University system are presented with opportunities for travel to states included in the ban, making university funds off limits to them."


 
I looked at the Second Amendment and it doesn't say "assault weapons" or "guns" at all.
The fact is the Constitution says stuff that isn't explicit.
This is not about gun rights bro.....i believe fetuses should be armed as well.....that would help stop abortion
 
Well technically, they banned paying for travel to states that hate gay and trans people.....people can still travel to any state they wish -- but the state won't be paying for travel to certain states....


"California Assembly Bill 1887 restricts the use of state funds for travel to now 18 states. Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia, Florida and North Dakota were added earlier this year. A number of students in the California State University system are presented with opportunities for travel to states included in the ban, making university funds off limits to them."



As you note, it does not restrict the travel of anyone. It's been noted that the governor has even vacationed in Montana.

If Ohio doesn't want to fund someone going to Indiana for an abortion, they most certainly do not have to but there is no way they will be able to restrict travel.
 
Well technically, they banned paying for travel to states that hate gay and trans people.....people can still travel to any state they wish -- but the state won't be paying for travel to certain states....


"California Assembly Bill 1887 restricts the use of state funds for travel to now 18 states. Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia, Florida and North Dakota were added earlier this year. A number of students in the California State University system are presented with opportunities for travel to states included in the ban, making university funds off limits to them."


Image being so small minded they you cherry pick 18 states who laws you don't like and do a travel ban like that. Well you wouldn't have to imagine that hard. LOL
 
Image being so small minded they you cherry pick 18 states who laws you don't like and do a travel ban like that. Well you wouldn't have to imagine that hard. LOL
Imagine thinking not paying for travel to another state is the same as criminalizing travel to another state.....


If you folks were so proud of your positions, why don't you act like it?? Why say "but but but but Democrats did it too" -- sounds like desperate deflection to me...


For example....I support strong labor rights to counter corporate power....period...I don't have to say "but but but Republicans...." to defend that position......


Oh yea, speaking of small minded...imagine being so small minded that you are triggered by the existence of trans people...so triggered that you want to use the power of government to erase their existence...
 
Based on all the evidence thus far, I'd say as far as they can.

For one who was abandoned by the Republican party, it's embarrassing to see what they've become.
When do you think you were abandoned by the Republican party?? Honest question


Because as someone who was never a Republican, I seen this coming back in the 90's - with Newt Gingrich and Rush leading the charge down the road of depravity politics...


Trump is only saying shit out loud that talk radio hosts have been saying for the past 30 years...
 
No they should not. They should ban people from bringing guns into the state. Too many guns flow from states that have little or no regulation to states that try to protect their citizens.

That's just bovine excrement, BB.

Tourists and visitors go to New York City to see the Empire State Building, the Statue of Fucking Liberty and other tourist traps available in the area. Not to do a drive-by in Bed-Stuy.

Allowing out of towners to have protection if they want to visit High Crime locations like Times Square and Central Park makes good sense.
 
That's just bovine excrement, BB.

Tourists and visitors go to New York City to see the Empire State Building, the Statue of Fucking Liberty and other tourist traps available in the area. Not to do a drive-by in Bed-Stuy.

Allowing out of towners to have protection if they want to visit High Crime locations like Times Square and Central Park makes good sense.

I've been to Times Square and Central Park and never felt at risk of anything.
 
Right, because it wasn't those who did that, that wrote the 2nd.
They wrote the 2nd back when the weapon of mass destruction was a cannon......


They had no idea about nukes, fighter jets, etc....


So no, no matter how much some of these right-wing ammosexuals fantasize about fighting a war against the US and overthrowing it -- it won't happen if you don't have a military with the same toys that the US govt has...


Even the colonialists needed help from France to do what they did....guess what country the right-wing ammosexuals will be seeking help from...
 
They wrote the 2nd back when the weapon of mass destruction was a cannon......
So?

They had no idea about nukes, fighter jets, etc....


So no, no matter how much some of these right-wing ammosexuals fantasize about fighting a war against the US and overthrowing it -- it won't happen if you don't have a military with the same toys that the US govt has...

Afghanistan doesn't have the same capabilities of the US or the old Soviet Union when they fought them but won both times.

Besides, that is all besides the point. Just because technology has changed, the Constitution has not and yes, I believe that means people can own a fighter jet (if they could actually afford one).


Even the colonialists needed help from France to do what they did....guess what country the right-wing ammosexuals will be seeking help from...

I'm not too concerned over what the "right wing" thinks.
 

Forum List

Back
Top