Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. -- JAMES MADISON
Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana's sights: a legal showdown over how
far the federal government's regulatory authority extends.
"It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of
the state of Montana," said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the
bill.
Carrie DiPirro, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives, had no comment on the legislation. But the federal
government has generally argued that it has authority under the interstate
commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate guns because they can so easily be transported across state lines.
This issue is indeed primarily about the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment, more so than the 2nd Amendment.
Quote:
United States Constitution
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Congress seems to regularly abuse the US Constitution and exceed their power under the Commerce Clause. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647), for example, was determined to be unconstitutional in a 5-4 vote by the US Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995). Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that I think is directly applicable to Montana's position.
Quote:
Although I join the majority, I write separately to observe that our case law has drifted far from the original understanding of the Commerce Clause. In a future case, we ought to temper our Commerce Clause jurisprudence in a manner that both makes sense of our more recent case law and is more faithful to the original understanding of that Clause.
We have said that Congress may regulate not only "Commerce ... among the several States," U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3, but also anything that has a "substantial effect" on such commerce. This test, if taken to its logical extreme, would give Congress a "police power" over all aspects of American life. Unfortunately, we have never come to grips with this implication of our substantial effects formula. Although we have supposedly applied the substantial effects test for the past 60 years, we always have rejected readings of the Commerce Clause and the scope of federal power that would permit Congress to excercise a police power; our cases are quite clear that there are real limits to federal power.
Also, the US Supreme Court stated in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 435 (1793)
Quote:
Each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved. It must necessarily be so, because the United States have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them.
Nor is Montana alone in its position.
Quote:
Bill 'exempts' Alaska from gun regulation
By DAN JOLING
The Associated Press
Published: April 16th, 2009 07:20 PM
Last Modified: April 16th, 2009 09:57 PM
JUNEAU -- On the same day they rejected an attorney general designee who is a board member of the National Rifle Association, members of the state House on Thursday approved a bill exempting guns and ammunition manufactured and kept within Alaska from federal firearms regulation.
Source: Bill 'exempts' Alaska from gun regulation: Alaska News | adn.com (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/762363.html - broken link)
The message to the federal government is crystal clear -- The line in the sand has been drawn.
The message to the federal government is crystal clear -- The line in the sand has been drawn.
That ranks up there as the silliest post of the week. Line in the sand? Secede, that's a line in the sand. So far all the "secessionists" have done is talk it to death.
Montana's National Guard takes an oath of allegiance to MT first. All of the Nukes there (and there are alot) would be taken over by MT pretty quickly. It would not be long and you could pretty much draw a swath down the middle of the country from MT/ND to TX/MS that divide the east and west coast lib's. This would leave the Mississippi/Missouri rivers as a navigable trade route to the entire Mid America's. In fact it would not surprise me if AK and the western provinces of Canada would want to be a part of the Mid America's.
The opportunity would need to be made for refugee's from all three seperate geographic regions to move to the area they seem to fit best. Liberals in Boulder for instance would move back to CA. Conservatives in the mountains of CA could come to UT and ID. Upstate NY'ers could flee to IN or MO wherever the line ended up maybe WV. The Progressives in Atlanta would be MD bound. Oh yeah, Illegals can go to either coast line they desire as would most of the criminal element in the middle, because you sure wouldn't stand much of a chance as a felon once sanity is reinstated in the Mid America's.
Once the dust settled The Mid America's would be one of the super powers of the world. We would have energy independence (coal, oil, wind), warm water ports, hard working ethical people, the agribelt and a willingness to stand up for what is truly right.
How strong could this country be again if we could go back to pre 60's values with today's technologies.
The military is 85% conservative and pro-2a.
My guess is that very few military personnel, other than a skeleton force comprised mostly of remaining African American Democrat voting soldiers, would be on the "coastal" side, effectively rendering it vunerable and defenseless. The coastal states would have a tough time filling their military ranks because the remaining pacifist hippies would refuse to fight. The only remaining people capable or willing to take up arms would be possibly gang-members and street thugs, which would lead to a force comprised of a demoralized and undisciplined band of thugs.
My guess is that very few military personnel, other than a skeleton force comprised mostly of remaining African American Democrat voting soldiers, would be on the "coastal" side, effectively rendering it vunerable and defenseless. The coastal states would have a tough time filling their military ranks because the remaining pacifist hippies would refuse to fight. The only remaining people capable or willing to take up arms would be possibly gang-members and street thugs, which would lead to a force comprised of a demoralized and undisciplined band of thugs.
It would be over before it started.
Spoken by a person who has obviously never served.
Spoken by a person who has obviously never served.
There are some holes in the theory you are posting about, but I do not think that most uniformed service people are chomping at the bit to 'pacify' their own countrymen either. Judging from my experience with military personnel (no I never wore the uniform, but I grew up following my father in the Navy, and worked on military bases for 11 years), I have never seen a widespread total commitment to an order to fire on the citizenry. Riots, such as the Rodney King stuff, have been exeptions, for obvious reasons, but a 'kick in the doors' thing , I do not think would be well recieved.
That ranks up there as the silliest post of the week. Line in the sand? Secede, that's a line in the sand. So far all the "secessionists" have done is talk it to death.
thats probably what the britsih thought as well about the colonists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
