South Carolina
Ping
Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.
Posted on 06/17/2009 5:30:24 AM PDT by marktwain
That’s what the switch from natural law to common/case law did.
Instead of “that law is not authorized by the Constitution/Bible”,
it became “in the case of Nose v Ear, the judges ruled X, so that’s the law”.
The entire US Constitution has been supplanted by brain-dead interpretations of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. We may as well get rid of the rest.
Patrick Henry (before the dementia kicked in, circa 1797) was proven correct by history - these two minor components of the US Constitution have served to nullify the remainder of the document. Hamilton (and Madison, for the most part) succeeded in birthing the tyrannical government they wished upon America (a nation led by an elected king, without any watery wenches back-story)
Good idea- but unfortunately, like the teaparties, noone in washington is goign to listen- Obama and hte dems are goign to do what they want regardless of what the people want or how it might hurt this coutnry.
There's no other way to read the 10th.
L
South Carolina
Ping
Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.
So isn’t that how we switch back? The way they illegally made the switch? The only difference is that our laws will be constitutional.
They’ve been tyrannizing us with their brass-balled moles in our judiciary for decades while we follow the “rules” they hand down. It’s time we grew a pair ourselves and reinstated the Constitution. Does any Conservative believe our Constitution should not be followed? Fight fire with fire.
The stakes are higher, of course, than just gun rights. If the judiciary somehow breathes new life into the Tenth Amendment, and curbs federal regulation of commerce taking place entirely within a state, that would let states bypass innumerable federal rules on everything from pharmaceuticals to children's toys.Exsqeeze my ignorance but I'm 99.995% sure the Rehnquist Court over turned a lot of laws just because of that. In effect they told Congress, "The Commerce Clause doesn't pertain to everything." (iirc that was in regards to Di-Fi's Gun Free School Zone Law they overturned).
And in this article Justice Thomas basically says the same thing: ""If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything."
In its Lopez decision, SCOTUS told Congress how to write a gun-free-school-zones act that would survive SCOTUS scrutiny. Congress followed the advice, and DiFi's Gun Free School Zone Law is currently on the books and enforceable.
SCOTUS is not at all friendly to the RKBA, nor is it at all friendly to diminution of federal power against the states, or against the individual.
Sigh. :(
The manufacture of machine guns and large caliber rifles is the whole gist of it. Going back to the first ones, the Jim Crow Laws were illegal. So were NFA ‘34, GCA ‘68, FOPA ‘86, AWB ‘94, I mean come on.
I would hope that at least Texas will go for the whole shebang.
To clarify the idiocy involved in Raich:
SCOTUS ruled that because Ms. Raich's activity decreased demand in an illegal interstate market, the feds could regulate her activity into oblivion. Got that? Because growing the stuff at home made her LESS likely to engage in ILLEGAL interstate commerce, the feds could stop her.
Be Ever Vigilant!
I saw these folks on Glenn Beck and I don’t think they have a defeatist attitude, they have a plan and I pray it works!
Creative strategy! FYI: There is no NEED for the Supremes to consider 2nd Amendment “Incorporation”! FACT: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!
Anyone Posted THIS?
In Border States, BATFE Asks: “May We See Your Guns?”
Friday, June 19, 2009
NRA-ILA has recently received several calls from NRA members in border states who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people’s homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess.
In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico.
This kind of questioning may or may not be part of a legitimate criminal investigation. For example, when BATFE traces a gun seized after use in a crime, manufacturers’ and dealers’ records will normally lead to the first retail buyer of that gun, and investigators will have to interview the buyer to find out how the gun ended up in criminal hands. But in other cases, the questioning may simply be based on information in dealers’ records, with agents trying to “profile” potentially suspicious purchases.
On the other hand, some of the agents have used heavy-handed tactics. One reportedly demanded that a gun owner return home early from a business trip, while another threatened to “report” an NRA member as “refusing to cooperate.” That kind of behavior is outrageous and unprofessional.
Whether agents act appropriately or not, concerned gun owners should remember that all constitutional protections apply. Answering questions in this type of investigation is generally an individual choice. Most importantly, there are only a few relatively rare exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement that law enforcement officials need a warrant to enter a home without the residents’ consent. There is nothing wrong with politely, but firmly, asserting your rights.
If BATFE contacts you and you have any question about how to respond, you may want to consult a local attorney. NRA members may also call NRA-ILA’s Office of Legislative Counsel at (703) 267-1161 for further information. Whether contacting a local attorney or NRA, be sure to provide as many details as possible, including the date, time, and location, agent’s name, and specific questions asked.
Yes. I was disgusted with the majority in Raich, and especially disappointed with Scalia. This is one of the reasons I think Thomas is the best justice on the court. He sticks to sound principles of limited government power without regard to whose ox is getting gored on a particular day.
Too bad. Let them go get their eyes checked if needed. Our liberty is not theirs to take.
Correcto!
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.