New Texas Abortion Law Likely to Unleash a Torrent of Lawsuits Against Education

Just because they set aside originalism when an outcome seems to offend their personal views more than they like, doesn't mean they think they have some special spiritual link to the founders.

Seeing as the Second Amendment always comes up in this vein of discussion, let's look into that, and the scourge of Firearm's enthusiasts everywhere, the NFA.

An Originalist looks at the Second Amendment, and sees a hard line in the sand. The right to bear arms will not be infringed is the active predicate, the necessity of a militia to the security of the State being a justification for the prohibition of the infringement of rights by the Federal Government. That's where the conversation starts.

Now, you've got a word with a hell of a lot of wiggle room there, depending on how you look at it. Infringe. Is it infringement if you just have to fill out a sheet of paper, and pay a tax, but still get the weapon? Enter the NFA.

Around the time of the NFA, gangs were experiencing a heyday, robbing the mail, the bank, ventilating each other... Something must be done, says the activist. The Originalist says, what do you propose? To restrict the technology meets the definition of infringement. The Activist says, let's tax it, and create paper trail, and make it a serious offense to not go through proper channels. In the end, everyone gets what they want. The Originalist is happy, the Second Amendment is upheld in spirit (I can still get a machine gun, I just pay a fee and it gets a number), even if with a bit of paperwork, the Activist got their enforcement mechanism to disincentivize uncontrolled machine gun propagation, or propagation of "only gangsters use that" weapons. Cool.

What you describe is Heller, if I recall correctly, and that bloody Amendment in 1986 that actually does extend to infringement in my estimation, because it straight up criminalizes and locks away part of the right to bear arms behind not only a poll tax, but the relinquishing of the right to privacy by FFL's based on enforcement methods by Law Enforcement, and the closing of the machine gun registry by revocation of Congressional authorization to the Executive to spend money maintaining it, meaning people can no longer legally bear arms that even by Heller's tortured definition, would be used by a militia.

The problem is that the Activist feels justified doing that because the Originalist already agreed that some paperwork getting added to the process was okay. The Originalist is about to lose it, because this Activist is not navigating the transitive dependency to realize that in extending precedent via tortured case law (Heller), implementing a poll tax (NFA +1986 amendment closing the registry) which the activist bends over backwards to accommodate under the Federal Government's auspice of "regulating interstate commerce (of firearms)", that due to other case law precedent where Federal regulatory jurisdiction was crowbarred into intrastate grain sales due to "intrastate sales effecting the interstate Market", taken as a whole, infringes the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, and the NFA, and needs serious attention from the Legislature to untangle the entire mess, which unfortunately, no one has the stomach for.

So the courts keep doing local Band-Aids and hacks consistent with the legal "principle of least harm (minimize the side-effects of new precedent), which only makes the situation worse, and creates new tangles and uncertainty.

Throw in the fickle nature of Administrative law changes by the Executive, and most reasonable people who the law was never originally intended to keep weapons out of the hands of will never bother to open the can of worms because of the regulatory morass it's become.

And that is why the Originalist is your friend, and the activist is frowned upon, and tolerated as a necessary release valve for societal change in the face of a defective or otherwise occupied legislature. Justices going nuts with interpreting things without doing their homework results in legal realities completely contradicting the intent of the original legislatures in making particular laws because a future generations felt like taking a modest control, and cranking it to 11, without refactoring the entire framework.

This is why I hate our legal system. No, I can't think of a better one. This one undeniably sucks though.

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

It's a depressing slog, but once you get through it, you'll come out of it with the resounding feeling that "this is why we can't seem to hold on to nice things".

It used to frustrate me but now it just makes me laugh when I see people talk about Dallas, Houston like they aren't two of the more diverse and largest metros in the country.

In practice it really isn’t. The city sprawls endlessly with no mass transit, so you end up staying in your corner of the greater Houston area all the time, which is 90% suburbs with no walkability. Urban Houston is more diverse yes, but once you get beyond 610 you lose all city benefits and all the neighborhoods are homogeneous and monocultural. Houston is ok. Greater Houston is a terrible place. Great food though.

I’ll give you that, but more languages are spoken in Houston than in NYC or LA, so even though the Hispanic population is in the majority, there are a lot of other kinds of people as well. And in the past election, Biden received twice as many votes from Houston as he did from Austin due to the fact that for all its fame Austin is a much smaller city.

That is not correct. Depending on the survey you look at, only 30-38% of Latino voters voted for Trump in 2020[1][2].

This was a big shift toward Republicans in 2020, but it still didn't make Latinos majority Republican.

There are trends that work for and against both parties right now, too, so 2022 is anyone's guess, but they'll still likely vote majority Democrat.

1. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/racist-latino-vote-accel...

2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/05/latinos-a...

The website can't force anyone to make the move, but can help with deciding where to move to in order to improve quality of life for everyone in the state.

It's also a solid investment to purchase real estate in a place you know quality of life will improve.

These regressive voters are mostly concentrated in suburban environments. It's not a huge ordeal for most people to live in suburban Austin or Dallas or San Antonio or etc.

> Folks shouldn't sacrifice quality of life (moving to rural areas versus areas they might desire more) to tip the state faster than it will already tip

Personally, I don't think "quality of life" is the word that should be used to distinctualize rural and urban living. I've lived in both and had a quality life in both, each came with their tradeoffs and sharp costs I had to manage.

Political districts in the US are already designed to favor specific parties and incumbents, the playing field is already not neutral.

This seems like little more than playing by the established rules of the game, which favors targeted demographics and swing districts over the broad populace.

The Free State Project did this to the town of Grafton, New Hampshire, invading to turn it into the country's first libertarian majority city so they could take over the government. And yeah, the locals were not too happy about it. One of the reasons they chose Grafton is there were no zoning laws, so they could move in quickly without having to build housing, which meant many of them were living in the woods, and since they had no experience doing that and kept leaving food out, the town became overrun with bears.

MIT's Election Lab might be even more useful:

https://electionlab.mit.edu/data

There are hundreds of local policies that states don't touch, including things related to collecting and spending taxes.

If everyone in Texas voted, it might have avoided this situation. You vote when it's hopeless until it isn't anymore.

And you have to defend against the case wherever it’s filed - ever tried getting to Lufkin or Marfa from the East Coast?