Posted on 06/22/2011 11:51:08 PM PDT by neverdem
Of course you are right. I was simply less sympathetic is the case of the farmer who claimed that the wheat he was growing was for his chickens. I don’t believe him. It was a bad case, almost as though the case was picked as a sure loser.
What is really the question is the whole system of farm subsidies and government regulation.
Have you heard about Obama’s newest executive order, putting all his Czars in charge of the rural areas of the country, under the guise of controlling food production? It’s all part of the Agenda 21, Wildlands project.
Right now, the left is pushing a Gateway terminal in my county. They have picked an island of commercial development that is not connected to any town or city, so that the residents who will be impacted, have no voice in the approval process. Then they went further and got the state to rule that the county council, who have ultimate say in the approval, cannot even discuss the project with their constituents until it is all over.
Then , the developers said that they wanted to include grain as an export to China, and invited all these farmers, who are now being paid not to produce grain and asked them if they would ship their grain to China through our county if the government lifted the regulations. So, it’s ok to grow the grain, or soy beans if they ship it to China.
The plan to ship both the coal and the food are part of the Agenda 21 plan for America, shipping out our natural resources to developing nations where the manufacturing and jobs will take place. Building these rail/ port projects to facilitate it and keeping all the profit inside the Democrat fascist system. The partners in the port projects are Goldman Sachs/ BNSF and Warren Buffet, using GE clean coal technology, Peabody coal. Oh, and the coal leases are on the Crowe reservation.
As far as I can tell this case stands for the individuals’ standing to sue under the 10th Amendment.
This case does not stand for the scope of the 10th Amendment.
No he didn't. If they found that, Bond wouldn't have to go back to state court to make an argument on 10A grounds. What they found was that 10A does place limits on the feds' authority and that individuals who are thus harmed can argue that that has happened in a particular case, and not just states. They left it for the lower court to decide if the feds have overstepped in Bond's particular circumstances.
I'm wondering if The Won pissed them off bad enough to actually stand up for the Constitution with his SOTU remarks about Citizens United. If so, I have mixed feelings about that. OTOH, he certainly deserves it for being rude and a commie, and I'll take a good ruling any way I can get it especially on CommieCare, but then who's going to stand up for our liberties when the would-be tyrant du jour treats them nice?
Ooh, I didn't catch that implication. It's like getting to open the same present twice!
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.