Redskins cannot move to new stadium unless team name changes: report

I guess the thread's hopelessly derailed now...

 

The team makes money off selling their merchandise.

 

Yep. And there are people quite willing to buy thier product no matter what others think of it. And proudly wear it.

 

Of course, both happened after the war ended.

But there are other parts of the Constitution that give the federal government seemingly wide powers.

It isn't how SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution. States are not sovereign.

He was engaging in illegal activities through the Klan.

This is tedious nonsense. Forest was a traitor and he violated his pardon. I don't have to hate him to believe he isn't suitable for the public square.

You're no historian.

I said Forrest was violating laws by his Klan activities, not saying Klan membership was illegal.

 

It's clear you're unwilling to deal with the accusations against Trump.

 

Yes, but many are not. It was going to cost them money.

 

It's clear you're wandering lost in your own sub-derailment.

But yeah - the sociopathic desire to subjugate & destroy via ridiculous, ever-changing purity standards which liberals themselves don't follow?

Bad.

Liberal support for Rapin' Joe Biden?

Bad.

Liberal support for rapist Bill Clinton?

Bad.

Take care, and...

Vote Democrat 2020

 

"Many" is subjective. Last I saw they were making millions.

 

"Many" is quantifiable and having a logo and name many people consider racist will cost them money.

 

Nothing about the dozens of accusations by women against Trump.

If Trump is rightly accused of misbehavior or corruption, Trumpers like you deflect by making similar accusations against his opponents. Like Trump, you don't deal with what Trump may have done.

 

He caved, obviously, but I sincerely doubt he's desperate to move the team back into a dilapidated old baseball stadium in a crappy part of DC that is smaller than the one he owns in Landover, MD now.

If Danny's about anything it's making lots of money, and moving back to RFK is not consistent with his MO.

 

I see 'em everyday, and a lot of them aren't White. Snyder hasn't put a consistently winning product on the field since he bought control of the team yet he's still raking in tons of cash.

It's unfortunate that he's caving to the political correctness that is running amok today, but it's his right to cave. In the spirit of the name change, he should rename the team the Washington Snowflakes. I've also come up with a new helmet design for the Snowflakes:

 

What a series of replies.... You paint yourself into a semantic corner, and now your pithy, threadbare rebuttal has blockaded itself.

I may not have majored in history, but I read enough of it to know that the Supreme Court has never (NEVER) sought to change one word of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution! However much you and the other revisionist libs may want to deny it, when it comes to anything and everything not specifically reserved to the Three Branches of Government, as specifically described in the Constitution, the decisions are legally left entirely to the individual STATES -- not a power-grabbing, overarching Federal Government. You may quibble about my use of the word, "sovereign", but you cannot deny that the 10th Amendment says exactly what it says!

Put it in true perspective, 'professor'... slavery was perfectly LEGAL and practiced among even such erudite nations as Great Britain and France until shortly before our American Civil War! However 'bad' we see it now from more than 150 years later, the Southern states had relied on agrarian economies involving plantations and slave labor from a time long before there even was a "United States of America".

The Southerners were trying to protect their entire way of life, their economies, and they relied on the Constitution to support them in their contention that THEY, and they ALONE had the right to decide what they, AS STATES, would allow, or disallow.

Anyway, it doesn't matter any more... Abraham Lincoln forever SMASHED the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, making a mockery of the whole concept of the citizens of a state being able to make decisions for themselves in a local perspective.

Back on topic, on reflection, maybe the best thing to do is simply to disband the football team, and then turn the stadium into an large, open-air homeless camp. Yeah. That would epitomize everything about this nation's capital.... A bunch of bankrupt, but, very politically-correct hyperliberal beggars, stumbling around in a useless, worthless stupor....

 

What kind of comment is that? SCOTUS can't amend the Constitution.

As I said, there are other clauses in the Constitution that SCOTUS interprets as giving the federal government broad powers. For example:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;​

But they also understood the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution.

SCOTUS, not Lincoln or other President, says what the 10th means.

 

^^^Still wandering lost in his sub-derailment, and has me confused with a "Trumper" - whatever that is.

Good luck to him!

 

You are right, "SCOTUS can't amend the Constitution." Good! Maybe we're getting somewhere.... And, you are right, it actually DOES say in the Constitution, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." It is delightful to see you paying attention to the Constitution as it is written! I can't believe the progress we're making, at last!

That was the purpose of the Constitution -- to set forth the functions, duties, and LIMITATIONS on a Federal Government... and the 10th Amendment clearly stated that anything not covered in the document was automatically decided by THE STATES!

Next, prior to the beginning of the Civil War, the Supreme Court did not (NOT) make slavery in any part of the United States illegal (as Great Britain did in 1833, or as France did in 1848. Moreover, the Supreme Court did not "interpret" that a state had no right to leave the United States Federal Government -- until AFTER the Civil War, with 'Texas v White' in 1869... but surely you knew that....

Like I said, victors always get to write the definitive history and make rules AFTER THE FACT, and they get to castigate the losers!

What did you think of my idea of just scrapping the team, doing away with it altogether, and turning the stadium into a permanent open-air homeless complex? I can see how that could be very appealing to the hyperliberal population of a parasite-infested quagmire like Washington D. C.

 

it is great when the dallas cowboys beat the washington redskins

in the olden days white texas cowboys did lawful combat operations to keep law and order because the redskins did riots.

but back on topic, they should keep the name for these great moments

 

Trumper is someone who spouts Trump propaganda.

 

The "general welfare" clause is one of the tools used to further federal government reach. Managing interstate commerce is another. No one on the Supreme Court is going to take a literal reading of the Constitution, and the Court often sets aside Tenth concerns.

The 10th is an amendment, fer crissake. It didn't make the first tier, so I think you may be pinning too much of your hope for whatever you want on state power.

Let's deal with the issue. Can a state leave the Union? Presumably by federal statute, the same way the came in if they're not the original thirteen states.

You want the government to pay $3.5b for the team and then do what?

 

So you're a Trumper?

Good to know.

 

Annnnnnnnnd it gets worse:

Multiple allegations of sexual harassment have the embattled team reeling & minority investors (financial term btw) looking for the nearest exit.

Evil troll/majority owner Snyder: Done

Redskins: Now eclipsing the Patriots as the most disgraceful team in pro football

 

Yeah, sure--I'm a Trumper.

 

Who cares if the government pisses away $3,500,000,000 for "the team"? We're pissing away TRILLIONS right now just to keep this overvalued stock market and millions of irresponsible, careless bums, parasites, and stock market gamblers from going bankrupt.

Let them take that three and a half 'bil' and blow it on homeless tents, for all I care! At the rate this country is going, we're ALL going to end up needing one....

. "I used to buy season tickets, then government decided to help me...."

 

I care. It would be an incredible waste of money.

 

Ah, I see... "...strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." (Bible stuff)

Well, in theory, I agree, completely. I deplore ALL the wasteful, stupid spending government does, and the recklessness with which it blows TRILLIONS of dollars -- not just mere piss-ant 'billions'. But the country started this kind of fiscal idiocy way back with Frankie Roosevelt, the great liberal Democrat 'demi-god', and it's become part of our DNA now.

We'll never stop, until it kills us and our economy.... So, that's why I make the 'acid' observation that three-and-a-half-billion for something like an open-air homeless compound might, indeed, be something that a Democrat House would be EAGER to promote! (Don't tell them... they'd DO it in a heartbeat....)