Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti-federal bills move forward in House (Montana)
Bozeman Daily Chronicle ^ | February 15, 2005 | WALT WILLIAMS

Posted on 02/16/2005 1:26:49 AM PST by TERMINATTOR

HELENA -- Lawmakers in the Montana House of Representatives collectively thumbed their noses at the federal government Monday by approving two bills exempting guns from federal regulations and driver's licenses from national standardization requirements.

The bills by Reps. Diane Rice, R-Harrison, and Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, do different things but are driven by the same concern: the erosion of personal liberties by the federal government. Koopman said Monday his gun bill, House Bill 366, would inspire a home-grown industry of gun-makers who produce firearms to be sold in Montana. It also sends a message reaffirming states' rights.

"In that regard, this bill really has positive consequences, I believe, beyond the firearms industry itself," he said.

Rice is sponsoring HB 304, which would prevent the state from cooperating with the federal government in establishing nationwide standards for noncommercial driver's licenses.

Federal standards, she said, amount to a national ID card. Critics fear that such standards will lead to the government tracking its citizens.

There was virtually no debate about the bill before lawmakers voted 94-6 to pass it, with a third and final vote expected today.

Congress last year required nationwide standards for driver's licenses, fearing terrorists were using the nation's cornucopia of license styles to skirt security at airports.

Montana already meets those standards, according to Dean Roberts of the motor vehicle division of the Montana Department of Justice.

But there are now two proposals before Congress that go beyond what the state puts on its driver's licenses. They would, for example, mandate states produce licenses resistant to tampering and counterfeiting.

If Montana ignores those standards -- as the bill requires -- then residents here wouldn't be able to use the driver's licenses as a form of ID when boarding commercial airplanes, or use them to pass any sort of federal-required identification.

"To the average citizen, that means you are not going to get on an airplane," Roberts said.

The bill was limited to noncommercial licenses because failure to comply with commercial license requirements would mean losing federal highway funds, he said.

It also makes it illegal to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, which currently isn't prohibited under state law.

Koopman's HB 366 would exempt guns made in Montana from federal regulation under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, as long as the guns remain inside the state.

Rep. Tim Dowell, D-Kalispell, criticized it as aiding terrorism. He noted that law enforcement officers used gun regulations to link the Washington D.C.-area sniper shootings.

Terrorists "can come to Montana, they can buy one of these weapons, go on a reign of terror, and there would be no way to track them down," he said.

He also questioned the logic of the state exempting itself from federal law.

"That's pretty cool, maybe we should say we aren't subject to the income tax," he said.

Dowell's complaints were dismissed as "crazy emotionalism" by Rep. Ed Butcher, R-Winifred. In the end, 73 lawmakers voted to move the bill forward, and afterward there was scattered applause on the House floor.

A third and final vote is expect today. If both bills pass their third vote, then they will move on to the Senate.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Montana; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; billofrights; constitutionlist; freewestproject; fwp; govwatch; helena; libertarians; montana; nationalid; privacy; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last
2005 Montana Legislature

HOUSE BILL NO. 366

INTRODUCED BY KOOPMAN, WARD, BROWN, MAEDJE, JOHN BALYEAT, FUREY, GOLIE, CLARK, CAMPBELL, LANGE, MENDENHALL, KLOCK, EVERETT, WARDEN, SONJU, EATON, WINDHAM, JACKSON, COHENOUR, RIPLEY, HAWK

 

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA."

 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 1.  Short title. [Sections 1 through 7 6] may be cited as the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 2.  Legislative declaration of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7 6] is the following:

     (1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

     (2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

     (3) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guarantee of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

     (4) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 3.  Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 7 6], the following definitions apply:

     (1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana defined in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.

     (2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.

     (3) "Manufactured" means creating a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 4.  Prohibition. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 5.  Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

     (1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

     (2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

     (3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

     (4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 6.  Marking of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 7 6] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

 

     NEW SECTION.  Section 7.  Duties of attorney general. (1) A Montana citizen whom the government of the United States attempts to prosecute, under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within Montana must be defended in full by the Montana attorney general.

     (2) Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition to which [sections 1 through 7] apply, the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the constitution, statutes, and case law of the United States.

- END -

 


Latest Version of HB 366 (HB0366.02)

Processed for the Web on February 10, 2005 (4:16pm)

New language in a bill appears underlined, deleted material appears stricken.

Sponsor names are handwritten on introduced bills, hence do not appear on the bill until it is reprinted.

See the status of this bill for the bill's primary sponsor.

 Status of this Bill | 2005 Legislature | Leg. Branch Home

This bill in WP 5.1 | All versions of all bills (WP 5.1 format)
Authorized print version w/line numbers (PDF format)
[
NEW SEARCH ]

Prepared by Montana Legislative Services
(406) 444-3064

1 posted on 02/16/2005 1:26:49 AM PST by TERMINATTOR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Montanans are libertarian. They don't even have a state speed limit. And they resist a bunch of folks back East tellin' them how to live. Even if they are Republican.

Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."

2 posted on 02/16/2005 1:32:53 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
The state now has a speed limit.

Montana DOJ Web Site

3 posted on 02/16/2005 2:13:19 AM PST by X_CDN_EH (regards wb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

Way to go, Montana!


4 posted on 02/16/2005 2:38:26 AM PST by BigTexJim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
He (the rat) also questioned the logic of the state exempting itself from federal law. "That's pretty cool, maybe we should say we aren't subject to the income tax," he said.

Its called freedom, you Kleimer! And, yes, a state exempting themselves from confiscatory federal taxes would be a great idea!

5 posted on 02/16/2005 6:24:04 AM PST by StockAyatollah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Montana has had a speed limit since the double-nickel was implemented (by Carter). The Feds tied implementation of speed limit and enforcement to Fed Highway Funds. So Montana Highway Patrol was founded at same time. During daytime (and good weather) speeding fine was (and remains, I believe) $5 regardless of how fast you're going. My Dad keeps a five dollar bill tucked behind his DL...
6 posted on 02/16/2005 6:42:40 AM PST by ComradeBork (Consistency is the hobgoblin...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

Koopman said Monday his gun bill, House Bill 366, would inspire a home-grown industry of gun-makers who produce firearms to be sold in Montana. It also sends a message reaffirming states' rights.



And there is no reason why this couldn't include full-auto guns (costing $1000 new instead of $10,000 used) and sound suppressors that require the cumbersome, slow, and expensive federal transfer process.


7 posted on 02/16/2005 8:39:29 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
Lawmakers in the Montana House of Representatives collectively thumbed their noses at the federal government Monday by approving two bills exempting guns from federal regulations and driver's licenses from national standardization requirements.

Awesome! Nullification makes a comeback!

8 posted on 02/17/2005 2:29:58 PM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

I wondered aloud on this forum some years back about why every firearm company didnt just open a small factory in each state and stamp "Manufactured in and only for sale and use in the state of XXXXXX" on each item produced. Everyone jumped in saying it would never work and referred to the Commerce Clause. Its good to see someone taking a stand against Commerce Clause abuse.


9 posted on 02/20/2005 12:09:57 AM PST by gnarledmaw (I traded freedom for security and all I got were these damned shackles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

This will go nowhere since no state can void a federal law.
What is in the water there anyway?


10 posted on 02/20/2005 12:19:29 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StockAyatollah

Can't do it though. As these grandstanders will find out soon enough.


11 posted on 02/20/2005 12:20:27 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

Any state that allows CRIMINAL INVADERS to get drivers licenses should not have their drivers licenses respected by a state that does have proper checks on who get licenses.


12 posted on 02/20/2005 12:25:13 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (a bullet only costs two bits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Can't do it though. As these grandstanders will find out soon enough.

Maybe not, but I am glad these Montanta legislators have the same spirit as the Founders, who did not "just shut up and take it". We were paying much less confiscatory taxes to King George than we are now. But they did just sit there afraid of offending the King. I would like to see more states tell the imperial feds in DC take a flying leap. What are they going to do? Send in troops?

13 posted on 02/20/2005 9:23:22 AM PST by StockAyatollah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: StockAyatollah

If you believe a freely elected government is the equivalent of being a Royal possession then you don't understand much about our founding or the basis of our government. Your remarks wrt this nutiness clearly show your lack of understanding as regards our constitution.


14 posted on 02/21/2005 1:07:00 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; 4ConservativeJustices; GOPcapitalist; Gianni

nullification bump


15 posted on 02/21/2005 1:08:46 PM PST by stainlessbanner (Gather round y'all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

John C. Calhoun, Patrick Henry and founders thumb-your-nose at tyranny bump.


16 posted on 02/21/2005 1:31:33 PM PST by 4CJ (Laissez les bon FReeps rouler - "Accurately quoting Lincoln is a bannable offense.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

These legislative attempts are because of the govts. complete lack of understanding of our constitution. (Unless, you think being a free citizen is the equivalent of 'justshutupandtakeit'.)


17 posted on 02/21/2005 1:46:04 PM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench

Jefferson was wrong in 1800s that "nullification" and state interpretation of the Constitution was appropriate. If you believe that is constitutional then you also do not understand what the Law of the Land means.

If "I don't like it therefore it is unconstitutional." is your judicial understanding then there isn't much there.


18 posted on 02/21/2005 1:48:25 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices

Yes the terrible "tyranny" of representational government elected by peers and citizens. It was a horror to King George and to Jefferson Davis. Which means "eh, so what?"


19 posted on 02/21/2005 1:50:35 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ComradeBork

Current limit is for the most part 75 MPH. I was through last week.


20 posted on 02/21/2005 1:51:53 PM PST by gogeo (Often wrong but seldom in doubt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR

Bump for later read!


21 posted on 02/21/2005 1:57:09 PM PST by SouthParkRepublican (There are no contradictions... Only faulty premises.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR
"That's pretty cool, maybe we should say we aren't subject to the income tax," he said.

Fine by me! Since you mention it, Mr. Dowell, let's get somebody write that bill too!

22 posted on 02/21/2005 5:30:22 PM PST by GOPcapitalist ("Marxism finds it easy to ally with Islamic zealotism" - Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
This will go nowhere since no state can void a federal law. What is in the water there anyway?

It can per the 10th amendment if that federal law is not constitutional, as in not "made in Pursuance thereof" of the constitution (supremacy clause). Last I checked there was nothing in the constitution that gave Congress the power to regulate intrastate commerce, of which a domestic gunmaking industry would be.

23 posted on 02/21/2005 5:41:34 PM PST by GOPcapitalist ("Marxism finds it easy to ally with Islamic zealotism" - Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: StockAyatollah
Don't mind justshutupandfakeit. He's an Alexander Hamilton-worshipper who thinks that our bloated federal government is and should be an all powerful unchallenged body that has the power to strike down anyone and anything that gets in its way.

If you look at the constitution, Montana is doing EXACTLY what it has the right to do. The Supremacy Clause that people like fake-it worship reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

Note the underlined section. It means that any federal law that is NOT "made in pursuance" of the constitution is in fact NOT supreme and NOT constitutional. Since Amendments 9 and 10 are very much a part of the constitution (as is Article I Section 8 which only gives congress the power to regulate commerce between the states, foreign nations, and indian tribes but NOT within the states themselves), any attempt of the federal government to prevent Montana from doing what it is doing would be unconstitutional by its act and invalid under the very same supremacy clause that people like fake-it purport to be an enforcing mechanism.

24 posted on 02/21/2005 5:49:51 PM PST by GOPcapitalist ("Marxism finds it easy to ally with Islamic zealotism" - Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist

Ooooh the fabled 10th amendment of lore able to leap tall buildings at a single bound. There are not 50 interpretations of the constitutions which are valid for legal proceedings or which determine what is or is not "made in Pursuance thereof" and if you believe a corporation can guarantee that is products cannot leave the state of their production then you are a bigger fool than I thought.

States have no legal authority over the Federal government and never did.


25 posted on 02/21/2005 9:25:55 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
States have no legal authority over the Federal government and never did.

Who created the federal government?

26 posted on 02/22/2005 6:56:17 AM PST by 4CJ (Laissez les bon FReeps rouler - "Accurately quoting Lincoln is a bannable offense.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices

The People of the United States just as it says in the Constitution. "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility...." Words we should all remember.


27 posted on 02/22/2005 7:12:08 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"We the people" of the states so ratifying, "we the people" of each state severally and unilaterally, "we the people" of each state for themselves, NOT "we the people" en masse. The people of the several states, united for a common purpose, created the federal government. It is a creation of the states, a servant of the states - not the master. The agent is not lord and master, the reverse is true.
28 posted on 02/22/2005 7:26:33 AM PST by 4CJ (Laissez les bon FReeps rouler - "Accurately quoting Lincoln is a bannable offense.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

We pledge alleigance to the Republic, not just that little piece of it inside the beltway.


29 posted on 02/22/2005 7:30:55 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices

Sorry but that is NOT what the Preamble says. The People of the United States were ASSEMBLED in State conventions specifically to remove the States from that approval. States were subordinate to the People of the United States and CREATED by the command of the Continental Congress. States were NEVER over the Nation. Parts cannot be greater than the whole.

The Constitutional Convention was authorized by the Congress of the United States. States had nothing to say about it.


30 posted on 02/22/2005 7:33:11 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

That Republic is manifest in the Constitution. And that Constitution was created by the People.


31 posted on 02/22/2005 7:34:08 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Parts cannot be greater than the whole.

Sorry for your deficiencies in education, but that is what a REPUBLIC is. The founders did not create a new NATION, they created a common government. The states were not destroyed, by states they acceded to a common government, and to that new government they DELEGATED certain powers - for enumerated puposes. Delegated powers can be resumed.

The Constitutional Convention was authorized by the Congress of the United States. States had nothing to say about it.

States were the parties in CONGRESS. And per their existing agreement - the Articles of Confederation & Peretual Union - such changes required UNANIMOUS consent per Article XIII - yet only 12 states attended, two members of the New York delegation left in disgust leaving that state without a vote in convention, and the NEW government was created when 9 - NINE - states ratified. I don't know about math in yankee states, but here in the South, 9 is less than 13.

32 posted on 02/22/2005 7:43:55 AM PST by 4CJ (Laissez les bon FReeps rouler - "Accurately quoting Lincoln is a bannable offense.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices

The Continental Congress created the states and nothing you say can change that. They are subordinate units of our Nation.


33 posted on 02/22/2005 7:45:48 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

I think you ignored the key question about this topic: forget about the theory for a moment, but what are the feds going to do?

Let's say that the Feds try to withhold highway funding--ok, Montana decides to play hardball and just simply refuses to remit the taxes to the federal government in the firstplace.

It comes down to sending in troops, and I just don't see that happening. If Montana doesn't want to play ball, it's pretty tough to make it. The whole system that we've got set up here pretty much depends on the states going along for the ride.


34 posted on 02/22/2005 7:51:55 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
That Republic is manifest in the Constitution. And that Constitution was created by the People.

And it granted and enumerated the powers of the Federal Government. Those powers were fixed at the time they were transferred, and remain unchanged until altered by amendment.

"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
- Justice Clarence Thomas

For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
- James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15

35 posted on 02/22/2005 7:54:22 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

You speak as though States PAY taxes. They don't and any individual living in Montana will have to decide whether to go up against the IRS on their own. A rather daunting prospect.


36 posted on 02/22/2005 7:58:04 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I have no argument with the Thomas quotation since the use of the Commerce Clause had gotten out of hand and needed another look at it. The court could review the fedlaw in regard to this and decide against it. That is the way the Constitution meant for the system to work.

Nullification has never been valid and never can be and still have the Constitution be the law of the land. It wasn't valid for South Carolina in 1830 or Montana in 2005.

Madison had slipped away from his Nationalist beginnings by 1829 and his original belief that the states were a positive detrement to National development and should be eliminated. The Constitutional Convention was called as much for economic reasons as political according to many.


37 posted on 02/22/2005 8:05:10 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
I have no argument with the Thomas quotation since the use of the Commerce Clause had gotten out of hand and needed another look at it. The court could review the fedlaw in regard to this and decide against it. That is the way the Constitution meant for the system to work.

They can indeed, but the can't do it spontaneously. There has to be a case to base it on. This may provide the basis for such a case.

Madison had slipped away from his Nationalist beginnings by 1829 and his original belief that the states were a positive detrement to National development and should be eliminated. The Constitutional Convention was called as much for economic reasons as political according to many.

That may be, but his observatsion on the original intent of the Commerce Clause remain, and help establish the basis for determining that Congress' use of the Commerce Clause has indeed exceed the authority granted to it by the representatives of the States that transferred that power.

38 posted on 02/22/2005 8:15:52 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Ooooh the fabled 10th amendment of lore able to leap tall buildings at a single bound.
In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning.
Chief Justice Taney, Holmes v. Jennison, 39 Pet. 540, 571 (1840)

39 posted on 02/22/2005 8:17:08 AM PST by 4CJ (Laissez les bon FReeps rouler - "Accurately quoting Lincoln is a bannable offense.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices

The problem is in the meaning placed on the words and those whose agenda is to undermine the federal government postulate that the 10th overrules all the rest.

My understanding of it is that it can do NOTHING contrary to a federal law and ONLY has application within a state which affects none in other states.


40 posted on 02/22/2005 8:29:50 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

That is all well and good. But the main issue is whether a state can nullify a federal law. It cannot.

I believe the state could have challenged this law in court without the grandstanding.


41 posted on 02/22/2005 8:31:28 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
The Constitutional Convention was authorized by the Congress of the United States. States had nothing to say about it.

Seems kind of odd, since the Congress of the United States is defined by, and empowered by the Constitution. The Congress of the United States under the Constitution did not exist until the Constitution was ratified.

42 posted on 02/22/2005 8:35:23 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
But the main issue is whether a state can nullify a federal law.

If it's outside Congressional authority, then it isn't a valid federal law to start with, and the state is well within it's power under the 10th amendment to disregard it.

43 posted on 02/22/2005 8:53:40 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Continental Congress sorry.


44 posted on 02/22/2005 8:54:17 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Continental Congress sorry.

And who authorized that?

45 posted on 02/22/2005 9:15:44 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

English colonies starting to think of themselves as Americans. Remember "unite or die" slogans? The most dynamic parts of the colonials began to consider themselves Americans years before the first shots were fired. They spoke to the world and to each other as Americans.


46 posted on 02/22/2005 9:21:41 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

No state can ignore a law only it believes to be unconstitutional. The tenth amendment only involves matters such as state and local health regulations, police powers or issues not covered by federal law. It can do nothing in conflict with those laws. All in all it is one of the least used amendments in the development of constitutional law and appears to be essentially meaningless since the passage of the 14th.

My view is that it was a sop to the slavers to mitigate their fear of fed involvement with their slaves.


47 posted on 02/22/2005 9:26:27 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
English colonies starting to think of themselves as Americans. Remember "unite or die" slogans? The most dynamic parts of the colonials began to consider themselves Americans years before the first shots were fired. They spoke to the world and to each other as Americans.

The debates of the Constitutional Convention refer to them as States, not colonies.

48 posted on 02/22/2005 9:27:19 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
No state can ignore a law only it believes to be unconstitutional. The tenth amendment only involves matters such as state and local health regulations, police powers or issues not covered by federal law. It can do nothing in conflict with those laws. All in all it is one of the least used amendments in the development of constitutional law and appears to be essentially meaningless since the passage of the 14th.

"Police powers" seems to be at the root of the contention, as the specific references to Commerce Clause regulations in proposed Montana laws, and Justice Thomas' comments seem to bear out.

49 posted on 02/22/2005 9:31:18 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

But they were not organized as States until directed by the Continental Congress to write constitutions and make it official. This was done mostly after the Declaration which also spoke for the People. "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...."


50 posted on 02/22/2005 9:32:38 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson