Posted on 07/19/2009 7:34:30 AM PDT by NoobRep
Great pic! :)
There have been at least two Endangered Species cases brought under the Commerce Clause which shot down the same intra-state claims. One was some sort of red fox (?) case on the east coast where the court said because tourists came to view the animal that it had an interstate nexus. The other was a bug in southern CA that was found only in CA, but becaue it was shipped to museums for collections around the nation, it became an interstate bug falling under federal regulation through the Commerce Clause.
Seems few were watching when the greens layed the tracks on this and state sovereignty was put to bed.
Gibbs v. Babbitt (red wolves not foxes)
See also National Association of Home Builders v. Babbitt,
United States v. Lopez, Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003, GDF Realty Investments v. Norton, 2004
http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=967&nid=6Does the Endangered Species Act regulate commerce?
The only problem with your suggestion is that federal law permits a federal agent to remove his criminal case to US District court if was acting in his official capacity.
Would be interesting to see what would happen if a state refused to release such agent from jail.
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. “
~George Washington
Yes it would.
There is a spectrum of crimes, arranged by how seriously the feds take them. NFA violations are very near the top.
BFL
Please add me to your ping list.
In the 1990s the Court did strike down federal legislation on the basis that it violated the Commerce Clause. I think a similar argument could be made regarding mandatory health insurance if they attempt it.
While there's no guarantees the current makeup of this Court is ideologically predisposed to being sympathetic to the states rights argument being made in this case. Short of that what's the alternative, another 1860s-style showdown? What other legal way could you use to force the feds to backoff?
ping
“Oathkeepers”
Yes, they are many. And resolute.
Done. Thank you for your interest.
The Constitution forbids titles of nobility. Further, it grants no authority for any agent to act unconstitutionally. Things could get interesting indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.