The lawsuit revolving around Montana's Firearms Freedom Act has gained some fellow travelers.
At issue is whether the Feds are still pretending to care about the Tenth Amendment or not.
Well, I mean, we know they're not, but it would be nice to see them admit it in black and white. After all, the idea of "sovereign states" has been a legal fiction since... oh, exactly this date in 1861, as a matter of fact.
(H/T to Unc.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
"...exactly this date in 1861..."
You are such a damn tease.
AT
I think suing the Feds is a step in the wrong direction. I mean, they've already demonstrated they don't care about the Constitution or any of the amendments besides the ones about income taxes and the direct election of senators, amiright?
The states and their Sheriffs ought to just declare legislation unconstitutional, refuse to enforce it, and prosecute any federal agents who come to enforce it.
Of course, it'd help if they had the gumption to wean themselves from the federal money teat.
Well,
It's not that they care about the tenth amendment, but if we do. In all reality, the Federal government is only as big as D.C. in actual size, the rest of it is perception. They are only as big as everyone thinks they are.
My understanding is that sovereignity is shared. Always was, and the firing on US soldiers on federal property didn't change it, just permitted the federal government to demonstrate the same kind of power that had previously been demonstrated against the British, Mexicans, Indians, pirates, and the Whiskey Rebellion
I just want to know who is going to get tired and go home from this soiree first?
Which definition of "shared" are we talking about here? The equal-distribution-without-merit one, taught by socialists in public schools when they were out of power? Or is it the constitutional one, where the federal government has a terse list of duties, and all other powers belong to the states and the people?
The only document that lays out the division of shared powers is the Constitution, with Article 1 having a list of powers, with all else being the States and people, except as modified by various amendments. Of course each state has its own constitution, further laying out the division between states and people.
Link back, and some further reading for you:
Buy stock in Reynolds!
(Deleted above and reposted with a proper hotlink ... I'm only braindead from 12am to midnight.
And not even a legal fiction since yesterday's date in 1869.
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."
We're still in the petition stage - for now.
One can hope that Liberty can be restored with only the first three boxes, but that doesn't seem the way to bet, historically.
This won't be resolved (properly) short of the Supreme Court, because it doesn't really have anything to do with the Tenth Amendment. It's all about the Interstate Commerce Clause, and it would require overturning the SCOTUS precedent that establishes the "substantial effect" interpretation of the ICC. With that horrible interpretation in place, the Fed's virtually unlimited power to regulate intrastate commerce is solidly protected.
I've said it before, but the Justices who came up with that decision should have been tarred, feathered, and drawn and quartered. They effectively stripped from the Constitution one of the most important protections against FedGov abuse and overreach.
Right, but that all comes down to a willful misinterpretation of "The Clause For The Cause Of Unlimited Government" as a bigger hammer with which to smash the 9th and 10th Amendments.
The creative interpretation of the Commerce Clause is little more than assigning a new and completely contradictory definition to the term, "regulate". In no other context would trade--beneficial to both parties--be made regular, or optimal, by nearly eliminating it; or throwing one or both parties in prison because of a meaningless paperwork violation.
The way the Feds do it now couldn't possibly be legal, because the Commerce Clause presumes trade. The words of jurists don't solidly protect the illicit exercise of power, the threat of being neck-stomped or machinegunned is what solidly protects it.
This is a tiny speck of an argument to raise beneath the dreadfully obvious government restrictions spelled out in the Second Amendment.
Post a Comment