Small government Republicans in Texas

[Breastman]

Sue for the right to access health records of women who leave the state for an abortion. Is this going too far? Thoughts?

Texas sues to block federal rule protecting health records of women crossing state lines for abortions

Paxton accused the federal government of attempting to "undermine" the state's law enforcement capabilities.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[22LR]

Sue for the right to access health records of women who leave the state for an abortion. Is this going too far? Thoughts?

Texas sues to block federal rule protecting health records of women crossing state lines for abortions

Paxton accused the federal government of attempting to "undermine" the state's law enforcement capabilities.

www.cbsnews.com

Didn't (and won't) read the CBS News article. 100% chance it's twisted and distorted reporting without telling the truth, the whole story and important details. If it's what you are saying, then yes, it's going too far.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

Sue for the right to access health records of women who leave the state for an abortion. Is this going too far? Thoughts?

Texas sues to block federal rule protecting health records of women crossing state lines for abortions

Paxton accused the federal government of attempting to "undermine" the state's law enforcement capabilities.

www.cbsnews.com

You got a whore in yer family?

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Nope. Not too far at all. Like collecting a DNA sample from the prime suspect in a homicide case.

 

[EZ Reyes]

If this is the whole story, then yes, Crook Paxton has yet again gone way too far.

 

[2012Bearcat]

While I don't necessarily agree with this I do understand this is about far more than abortion. The SCOTUS ruled states have the right to determine abortion laws. I'm against the federal government interfering what is clearly a states rights issue.

 

[OUSOONER67]

The left sure loves them some baby killin. Right Boob Boy?

 

[Marocain Poke]

If this is the whole story, then yes, Crook Paxton has yet again gone way too far.

So it looks like the GOP has split essentially in to three camps:

• The true never Trump RINO crowd
• The people with excellent conservative bonafides who begrudgingly support Trump in spite of his lack of coherence and moral compass.
• The nutball blind groupies who take zero stock of their positions and follow like sheep with the likes of Paxton and who would never dare question a Trump utterance. These are the other side of the COVIDIOT spectrum who call themselves "pure bloods" because they haven't had a Covid vaccine.

I wish the second group had the influence needed to steer the agenda, but alas they are two few in numbers and/or too meek.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

So it looks like the GOP has split essentially in to three camps:

• The people with excellent conservative bonafides who begrudgingly support Trump in spite of his lack of coherence and moral compass.

I wish the second group had the influence needed to steer the agenda, but alas they are two few in numbers and/or too meek.

Ah yes, the 'we will win on the power of our ideas' crowd. The crowd that wants to pontificate on what those ideas should look like, but who are also too lazy to actually do the hard work of implementing them.

Then when someone like Trump comes along, they shit on him for not implementing the ideas the way THEY wanted it done.

Guess it's easier to criticize how someone else is doing the job rather than get off your duff and do it yourself.

 

[Marocain Poke]

Ah yes, the 'we will win on the power of our ideas' crowd. The crowd that wants to pontificate on what those ideas should look like, but who are also too lazy to actually do the hard work of implementing them.

Then when someone like Trump comes along, they shit on him for not implementing the ideas the way THEY wanted it done.

Guess it's easier to criticize how someone else is doing the job rather than get off your duff and do it yourself.

Interesting that you would level such a conclusion without knowing who I am.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

So it looks like the GOP has split essentially in to three camps:

• The true never Trump RINO crowd
• The people with excellent conservative bonafides who begrudgingly support Trump in spite of his lack of coherence and moral compass.
• The nutball blind groupies who take zero stock of their positions and follow like sheep with the likes of Paxton and who would never dare question a Trump utterance. These are the other side of the COVIDIOT spectrum who call themselves "pure bloods" because they haven't had a Covid vaccine.

I wish the second group had the influence needed to steer the agenda, but alas they are two few in numbers and/or too meek.

No there are more camps than three.

• The Rhino camp, should not even be in the tent
• People who call themselves conservatives but don't really know what conservative is. These are typically your elites in the party that speak a good game but can't come through when they get power. Or your number two. They will support Trump in public and work against any type of agenda in the background and achieve nothing.
• People who are actually conservative and want to move the needle, so they support Trump.
• People who are just Trump fans because he is belligerent and hate the elites in society. Useful to bring numbers to a crowd, and generally helpful when moving the conservative agenda forward.
• Libertarians who agree with Trump on some things and understand the other side would do more damage than Trump can.

I can keep going but note number #2. Your definition screams elitist, the I know better than you crowd. Whether you intended it that way or not it comes across that way. The reader also comes away with you saying you are number 2. Again, whether you intended it or not. Let me assure you, your group number 2 is too meek and will be the lefts kicking bag until they grow a pair.

 

[blbronco]

While I don't necessarily agree with this I do understand this is about far more than abortion. The SCOTUS ruled states have the right to determine abortion laws. I'm against the federal government interfering what is clearly a states rights issue.

IMO, this is getting to a territory of: do states own their residents? It is illegal to have marijuana in Texas. Does that mean a Texas resident cannot obtain and consume it in another state? Though not a total apples to apples comparison, it is going that direction. I don't care for Paxton at all, so take this with a grain of salt, but IMO, he is going WAY too far with this.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Interesting that you would level such a conclusion without knowing who I am.

Where did I say you were a part of that group?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I can keep going but note number #2. Your definition screams elitist, the I know better than you crowd. Whether you intended it that way or not it comes across that way. The reader also comes away with you saying you are number 2. Again, whether you intended it or not. Let me assure you, your group number 2 is too meek and will be the lefts kicking bag until they grow a pair.

Precisely. This group used to drive Rush Limbaugh insane. They would call into his show every day crying about 'why is Trump SO MEAN????'

He would always tell them "You guys said for years that you wanted to see republicans push back against the libs. Folks....THIS IS WHAT PUSH BACK LOOKS LIKE!'

As I said, they don't want to do the work themselves, easier to criticize others than do that.

 

[trapped_in_tx]

So it looks like the GOP has split essentially in to three camps:

• The true never Trump RINO crowd
• The people with excellent conservative bonafides who begrudgingly support Trump in spite of his lack of coherence and moral compass.
• The nutball blind groupies who take zero stock of their positions and follow like sheep with the likes of Paxton and who would never dare question a Trump utterance. These are the other side of the COVIDIOT spectrum who call themselves "pure bloods" because they haven't had a Covid vaccine.

I wish the second group had the influence needed to steer the agenda, but alas they are two few in numbers and/or too meek.

I think meek is an oversimplification.

That group, by definition, has a keen awareness of the depth and breadth of the crapshow. There’s a calculus to assess the risk of trying to seize influence in that context, and the risks aren’t trivial.

 

[Marocain Poke]

No there are more camps than three.

• The Rhino camp, should not even be in the tent
• People who call themselves conservatives but don't really know what conservative is. These are typically your elites in the party that speak a good game but can't come through when they get power. Or your number two. They will support Trump in public and work against any type of agenda in the background and achieve nothing.
• People who are actually conservative and want to move the needle, so they support Trump.
• People who are just Trump fans because he is belligerent and hate the elites in society. Useful to bring numbers to a crowd, and generally helpful when moving the conservative agenda forward.
• Libertarians who agree with Trump on some things and understand the other side would do more damage than Trump can.

I can keep going but note number #2. Your definition screams elitist, the I know better than you crowd. Whether you intended it that way or not it comes across that way. The reader also comes away with you saying you are number 2. Again, whether you intended it or not. Let me assure you, your group number 2 is too meek and will be the lefts kicking bag until they grow a pair.

The elitists are those that believe they are the true, infallible, conservatives and "pure bloods".

 

[Rdcldad]

 

[Rdcldad]

So it looks like the GOP has split essentially in to three camps:

• The people with excellent conservative bonafides who begrudgingly support Trump in spite of his lack of coherence and moral compass.

I wish the second group had the influence needed to steer the agenda, but alas they are two few in numbers and/or too meek.

wtf is his lack of coherence and moral compass?

go ahead start a list

 

[fatman76]

Sue for the right to access health records of women who leave the state for an abortion. Is this going too far? Thoughts?

Texas sues to block federal rule protecting health records of women crossing state lines for abortions

Paxton accused the federal government of attempting to "undermine" the state's law enforcement capabilities.

www.cbsnews.com

Yea this is kinda f***ed up.

I am against abortion, full stop. But I understand why people aren't. I am a conservative, so I believe in Federalism. You don't like Texas' ban, you are free to relocate to a state you agree with. I'm happy with reducing the power of the Federal gov't to dictate to states almost every time.

So the issue here is Texas' right as a state to enforce its laws vs, for example, CA as a state to have its own set of laws. And, do the laws of your state follow you to another state, which to me is very anti-Federalist.

The part that makes this even more confusing is Texas isn't after the person killing the baby, they're after the doctor doing it. How can Texas prosecute a licensed doctor doing a legal procedure (in his/her state)?

This is a bridge too far for me legally, the abortion issue doesn't even matter in this case.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Where is my bullet point?

I am a Reaganite 3 legged stool conservative. Social, military and economic conservative.

You know there are laws against taking people across state lines. Sometimes its kidnapping or to take the a girl across lines where the age of consent is lower.

Why is it odd or going too far to prevent someone from crossing a state line in order to murder another human being? I mean that's already illegal.

Somehow I think people keep missing the point that the unborn baby is a living human being with a right to life. Change my mind.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

The elitists are those that believe they are the true, infallible, conservatives and "pure bloods".

Yes, and yet they are weakest when it comes to actually following through. They believe in it they don't practice it. Many times, they only think that they are true, infallible, conservatives and "pure bloods", but that is antithetical to being a conservative.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Yea this is kinda f***ed up.

I am against abortion, full stop. But I understand why people aren't. I am a conservative, so I believe in Federalism. You don't like Texas' ban, you are free to relocate to a state you agree with. I'm happy with reducing the power of the Federal gov't to dictate to states almost every time.

So the issue here is Texas' right as a state to enforce its laws vs, for example, CA as a state to have its own set of laws. And, do the laws of your state follow you to another state, which to me is very anti-Federalist.

The part that makes this even more confusing is Texas isn't after the person killing the baby, they're after the doctor doing it. How can Texas prosecute a licensed doctor doing a legal procedure (in his/her state)?

This is a bridge too far for me legally, the abortion issue doesn't even matter in this case.

The answer to your question is they cannot prosecute a doctor out in another state performing a procedure that is legal in that state. However, from what I am seeing in the article Texas wants access to the medical records of those patients who are in Texas but getting care in California. Tricky situation. If Texas can't get access to those records, then that person would need to change their citizenship to California, and stay there instead of coming back. If they come back the doctors in Texas need to know what procedures that have been performed to better treat the patient. There is a very grey back and forth here.

Say I'm using marijuana in Texas for a prescription given to me by a doctor in California, but marijuana is illegal in Texas. What would be the states response to that if the State found that that person was using marijuana in Texas. For transitioning people, they have to continuously take medication to transition them, and all of that medicine is illegal in Texas. Can Texas stop the transitioning process? It's a highly complex issue that crossed states line. As a Federalist, you would support an opportunity for the Federal government to then step in and make a law that covers this situation. But you are conservative, so you would support the Federal government coming in on this law in the least intrusive way possible. The question is what is that?

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

California produces freak politicians and freak citizens on an exponential pace. Texas does not.

 

[blbronco]

The answer to your question is they cannot prosecute a doctor out in another state performing a procedure that is legal in that state. However, from what I am seeing in the article Texas wants access to the medical records of those patients who are in Texas but getting care in California. Tricky situation. If Texas can't get access to those records, then that person would need to change their citizenship to California, and stay there instead of coming back. If they come back the doctors in Texas need to know what procedures that have been performed to better treat the patient. There is a very grey back and forth here.

Say I'm using marijuana in Texas for a prescription given to me by a doctor in California, but marijuana is illegal in Texas. What would be the states response to that if the State found that that person was using marijuana in Texas. For transitioning people, they have to continuously take medication to transition them, and all of that medicine is illegal in Texas. Can Texas stop the transitioning process? It's a highly complex issue that crossed states line. As a Federalist, you would support an opportunity for the Federal government to then step in and make a law that covers this situation. But you are conservative, so you would support the Federal government coming in on this law in the least intrusive way possible. The question is what is that?

Your marijuana question is simple. It is illegal to possess marijuana in the state of Texas. I brought that up in my example. More comparatively to the OP situation is what I mentioned. Can a Texas resident legally buy and consume marijuana in a state that allows it? The answer is yes, and the state of Texas can do nothing about it, nor should they. We can argue to what degree a fetus is a person, but the state does not consider them a person for tax purposes, HOV lanes, etc. Therefore, how can the state argue personhood in the case of going to a state where abortion is legal?

 

[fatman76]

The answer to your question is they cannot prosecute a doctor out in another state performing a procedure that is legal in that state. However, from what I am seeing in the article Texas wants access to the medical records of those patients who are in Texas but getting care in California. Tricky situation. If Texas can't get access to those records, then that person would need to change their citizenship to California, and stay there instead of coming back. If they come back the doctors in Texas need to know what procedures that have been performed to better treat the patient. There is a very grey back and forth here.

Say I'm using marijuana in Texas for a prescription given to me by a doctor in California, but marijuana is illegal in Texas. What would be the states response to that if the State found that that person was using marijuana in Texas. For transitioning people, they have to continuously take medication to transition them, and all of that medicine is illegal in Texas. Can Texas stop the transitioning process? It's a highly complex issue that crossed states line. As a Federalist, you would support an opportunity for the Federal government to then step in and make a law that covers this situation. But you are conservative, so you would support the Federal government coming in on this law in the least intrusive way possible. The question is what is that?

I don't like the marijuana example because it's not a procedure it's "medicine". Transitioning example is a bit closer.

We may have different definitions of Federalism. My understanding is it's a system where the Federal gov't has a firm agreement with the States on what it governs, and it's highly limited. ALL other laws are made at the state level. States' rights basically. Decentralization of power. It's sort of the opposite of what it sounds like.

Lastly, the Texas law doesn't prosecute the patient, it goes after the doctor or person who made the abortion possible (which if you're trying to eliminate abortion is smart, pinch the "dealer" not the "junkie").

From the article:
"Texas' abortion ban, like those in other states, exempts women who seek abortions from criminal charges. The ban provides for enforcement either through a private civil action or under the state's criminal statutes, punishable by up to life in prison, for anyone held responsible for helping a woman obtain one."

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Your marijuana question is simple. It is illegal to possess marijuana in the state of Texas. I brought that up in my example. More comparatively to the OP situation is what I mentioned. Can a Texas resident legally buy and consume marijuana in a state that allows it? The answer is yes, and the state of Texas can do nothing about it, nor should they. We can argue to what degree a fetus is a person, but the state does not consider them a person for tax purposes, HOV lanes, etc. Therefore, how can the state argue personhood in the case of going to a state where abortion is legal?

But can they bring it back to Texas?

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

I don't like the marijuana example because it's not a procedure it's "medicine". Transitioning example is a bit closer.

We may have different definitions of Federalism. My understanding is it's a system where the Federal gov't has a firm agreement with the States on what it governs, and it's highly limited. ALL other laws are made at the state level. States' rights basically. Decentralization of power. It's sort of the opposite of what it sounds like.

Lastly, the Texas law doesn't prosecute the patient, it goes after the doctor or person who made the abortion possible (which if you're trying to eliminate abortion is smart, pinch the "dealer" not the "junkie").

From the article:
"Texas' abortion ban, like those in other states, exempts women who seek abortions from criminal charges. The ban provides for enforcement either through a private civil action or under the state's criminal statutes, punishable by up to life in prison, for anyone held responsible for helping a woman obtain one."

A federalist is someone who wants more power in the Constitution and the federal government. An anti-federalist wants more power in the states.

 

[blbronco]

But can they bring it back to Texas?

It is illegal to possess in Texas, so no, they cannot bring it back.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

It is illegal to possess in Texas, so no, they cannot bring it back.

Which would also apply to transgender medicine.

Now you have a crime committed in Texas from someone from California but is not in Texas.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

California produced Fienstein, newsome and now Harris. With the Libyan Barry and the Podunk arkys slick willy and Hillary worshiping their prophecy. Thems some fvcked up folks.

 

[Rdcldad]

that damn moral compass

trump grabbing them by the pussy

 

[blbronco]

Which would also apply to transgender medicine.

Now you have a crime committed in Texas from someone from California but is not in Texas.

If the medications are illegal in Texas, then yes, it would be illegal. I have no issues with that. What I am referring to is abortion being done out of state and the state having no privilege to those records. Nor should they have access to medical records for other treatments outside the state. Going with what I think you are trying to get at regarding the crime from California. The prescriber is committing no crime in any form, thus no privilege to records. The patient may be committing a crime by bringing an illegal drug to the state, though (if the drug/drugs are illegal).

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

If the medications are illegal in Texas, then yes, it would be illegal. I have no issues with that. What I am referring to is abortion being done out of state and the state having no privilege to those records. Nor should they have access to medical records for other treatments outside the state. Going with what I think you are trying to get at regarding the crime from California. The prescriber is committing no crime in any form, thus no privilege to records. The patient may be committing a crime by bringing an illegal drug to the state, though (if the drug/drugs are illegal).

This is why I say this a huge Grey area. It's not perfect how even something like an abortion can be conducted in one state but the state that the individual lives in isn't effected or a law broken. For some states it may even go so far as to say you committed a murder in another state. Now what, do you get to let that slide? If you committed a murder in Kanasas but live in ok and Kansas refuses to prosecute, do you get away with murder. Probably but not a civil case holding you liable for the death.

I get what Texas is doing, but it's not cut and dry. In the end I end up on the same place you are but would say these things need to get worked out, this won't be the last time we are on here talking about this situation in one form or another.

 

[blbronco]

This is why I say this a huge Grey area. It's not perfect how even something like an abortion can be conducted in one state but the state that the individual lives in isn't effected or a law broken. For some states it may even go so far as to say you committed a murder in another state. Now what, do you get to let that slide? If you committed a murder in Kanasas but live in ok and Kansas refuses to prosecute, do you get away with murder. Probably but not a civil case holding you liable for the death.

I get what Texas is doing, but it's not cut and dry. In the end I end up on the same place you are but would say these things need to get worked out, this won't be the last time we are on here talking about this situation in one form or another.

I disagree on a lot of the nuance of it (Texas cannot prosecute a murder done in another state). I see this type of situation as more black and white, but can certainly agree to disagree on the nuance.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

This is why I say this a huge Grey area. It's not perfect how even something like an abortion can be conducted in one state but the state that the individual lives in isn't effected or a law broken. For some states it may even go so far as to say you committed a murder in another state. Now what, do you get to let that slide? If you committed a murder in Kanasas but live in ok and Kansas refuses to prosecute, do you get away with murder. Probably but not a civil case holding you liable for the death.

I get what Texas is doing, but it's not cut and dry. In the end I end up on the same place you are but would say these things need to get worked out, this won't be the last time we are on here talking about this situation in one form or another.

Gavin's got a job fer ya. Cankles will coach ya thru it.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Gavin's got a job fer ya. Cankles will coach ya thru it.

If the job is kicking his arse out of cali then I'll take it and as far as cankles goes, she couldn't coach her way out of wet paper bag.

 

[fatman76]

A federalist is someone who wants more power in the Constitution and the federal government. An anti-federalist wants more power in the states.

This is where I think we have different definitions. Yours is historical, I’ve heard the term used more in modern context like this quora answer I stole that says it better than I can:

“Originally we had federalists and anti-federalists. The federalists wanted a strong but limited central government. The Anti-federalists feared a strong government and wanted the states to have more authority.”

“Today the federalists want to maintain our Constitutional form of government which has evolved into a decentralized, distributed form of government and you have the modern day Fascists party (progressives) who want an overwhelmingly powerful central government supported by urban population centers who seek to force the rest of the country to finance their utopian fantasies.”

Source:

Did Federalists want states to have limited powers? It says that Federalists wanted a strong central government. So does that mean they w...

Answer (1 of 10): Which federalists? The federalists who supported ratification of the constitution against the anti-federalists wanted a federal government much stronger than that of the Articles of Confederation. But they also spelled out the powers of the federal government under Article I, S...

www.quora.com

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

If the job is kicking his arse out of cali then I'll take it and as far as cankles goes, she couldn't coach her way out of wet paper bag.

You just shook my head up a bit.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

This is where I think we have different definitions. Yours is historical, I’ve heard the term used more in modern context like this quora answer I stole that says it better than I can:

“Originally we had federalists and anti-federalists. The federalists wanted a strong but limited central government. The Anti-federalists feared a strong government and wanted the states to have more authority.”

“Today the federalists want to maintain our Constitutional form of government which has evolved into a decentralized, distributed form of government and you have the modern day Fascists party (progressives) who want an overwhelmingly powerful central government supported by urban population centers who seek to force the rest of the country to finance their utopian fantasies.”

Source:

Did Federalists want states to have limited powers? It says that Federalists wanted a strong central government. So does that mean they w...

Answer (1 of 10): Which federalists? The federalists who supported ratification of the constitution against the anti-federalists wanted a federal government much stronger than that of the Articles of Confederation. But they also spelled out the powers of the federal government under Article I, S...

www.quora.com

Well that's an interesting take.

Our government is supposed to be a blend of both. Anti-federalists gave us the bill of rights. Federalist gave us a solution to our first attempt at government which gave too much power to the states. The compromise is the constitution and the bill of rights.

The evolution of that compromise has been a slow creep towards full federalism which is dangerous as it leads to tyranny. We have given up some of our balances from the constitution and it a dangerous game to play. I am both federalist and anti-federalsit. Or in modern terms I am a Constitutionalist. Your quarantine answer while interesting I think fails on historical grounds. I'm not sure modernization of the term is warranted.