To those of you making fun of the tenth ammendment movement

[nadinbrzezinski]

Skip to comments.

The Battle Begins: ATF vs the Constitution
10th Amendment Center ^ | 7/18/09 | Bryce Shonka

Posted on Sunday, July 19, 2009 7:34:30 AM by NoobRep

A line was drawn in the sand last week - a response by the Federal Government to the State of Tennessee and their assertion of sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Part of a series of moves by states seeking to utilize the Tenth Amendment as a limit on Federal Power, the Tennessee State Senate approved Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7. The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1.

Governor Breseden allowed the bill to become law without signing.

The law states that “federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”

At the time of passage through the TN House and Senate, Judiciary Chairman Mae Beavers had this to say-

“Be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to regulate commerce contained completely within this state – enough is enough. Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”


(Excerpt) Read more at tenthamendmentcenter.com ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2296028/posts

Now perhaps I need to spell this out for some of you folks, but this is the kind of language that preceded them bullets at Fort Sumpter. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Term States Rights, but this is all this is about...

And to those who hate to read FR, head in sand is fine by me, but we have seen this before in US history... and worst case... it will not be pretty. After all civil wars are never civil.

[sharesunited]

1. There is enough commerce clause jurisprudence to render this a hollow gesture.

I say let them have this kind of rhetoric if it calms the waters.

You don't need to go out of your way to make the paranoid feel cornered, even as you proceed to disregard the substance of their concerns.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

4. People are always entertained

when I tell them that I think the Commerce Clause is the most powerful part of the Constitution - I know, I know, but I like to say it.

Then I explain to them how the Federal government got jurisdiction in the American South when the state courts, and laws, institutionalized racism.

I love that Clause................

[Manifestor_of_Light]

58. Boy that brings back fond memories of Federal Procedure.

And all the cases that hash out interstate commerce.

International Shoe, boy howdy......:rofl:

Thanks, Tangie!!

[Irreverend IX]

67. Why do you love a clause that facilitates arbitrary tyranny by the Feds?

The interstate commerce clause is one of the main pillars of the drug war, and if it came down to it Congress could probably pass arbitrary restrictions on Internet speech through the IC clause because (almost) all Internet traffic crosses state lines and bandwidth on the telecommunications network costs money, thus every IM and email you send could be considered a tiny financial transaction. Is it worth giving undue power to a centralized authority for a good cause like desegregation? Because that same power can later be turned around and used to do very bad things.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. This is the same kind of talk that preceded the civil war

we have a small, but very vocal (and well armed) minority, that I fear is willing to go there. Civil wars are not started by those who get their ways, but by those who have nothing else to lose... or gain by participating in the political system as it exists in a society.

A civil war, and a full secession movement is the worst case scenario... but as I used to tell my guys, over and over and over again, PLAN FOR THE WORST, HOPE FOR THE BEST.

Here's to hoping...


:toast:

[sharesunited]

14. Koresh, Weaver and McVeigh are the names you invoke to discredit that threat.

Those names are shorthand for Never Again.

But I would also add that the 2A was rendered moot by the American Civil War. Attempts to revive it should be treated with the same credibility as attempts to revive the corpse of Lincoln himself.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. I would like to remind you of a little history

the civil war that started at Ft Sumpter was preceded by 20 years of talk, and a few sharp hot wars, like the Kansas Little War and John Brown...

The last one was the subject of a marching song by Union Soldiers, ironically he was arrested and hung by Union Soldiers. The whole operation was led by one Colonel Robert E, Lee.

That is why I don't discount this so easily.

[sharesunited]

17. Remember why John Brown was hanged.

Insurrection. The righteousness of which was irrelevant to the crime and the punishment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. The point is that civil wars build up until they explode

that is the usual pattern. And the Right Wing in this country is following that historic pattern to a T. So Weaver and the rest of the boys may not have succeeded, they were symptoms of where exactly we might be heading... as I said, plan for the worst, hope for the best

:toast:

[sharesunited]

25. I play the likely scenario over in my mind, and it always ends the same way.

Some hotspot uprising is quickly villified for its abject criminality.

The rebels are killed or arrested.

The eyes of the nation observe the situation for the slightest crack in the resolve of the authorities to restore order.

A debate ensues whether these were criminals or patriots. (Who were the politician apologists for Koresh and Weaver? Did McVeigh have any at all?)

The nation, unwilling to allow the incident to spark a conflagration, once again and consistently says No We Are Not Going To Join Your Shit.

The 2A crowd mopes around, continues to stockpile, and dreams of a day when they can trigger their revolution.

In anticipation of the first hotspot, just keep saying the words which will douse that little coal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. And sooner or later that little scneario will turn into

a real shooting war,like it has historically around the world. That is the problem.

Civil wars are not started by a majority, whether this was the first Civil war, otherwise known as the War of Independence or the more preferred American Revolution, or the actual civil war.

Examples from other places in history are there to explore as well... and parallels not only to US history but other nasty events are there to compare with.

Our right wing radio nuts, Rwanda...

Our RW racist fucks, Serbia.

Our RW scared of commies, Franco's spain

You really want me to go on?

And I pray I am wrong about this, but the problem with that little ember is that it keeps glowing, and some folks truly believe they have nothing to gain in the political system any more. Suffice it to say, the MAJORITY, and you are right there, does not want it. In fact, the majority usually sleep walks through the prelims fully unaware of how the society is splintering right under their feet.

[ohheckyeah]

44. The federal government has

equipment now that make the arms individuals have look like cap guns. Any open rebellion and uprising would be squashed like bugs by the feds.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. I wish I had your faith in the strenth of the feds

especially since I am not envisioning open warfare... and anybody who thinks the blue and the gray will take the field again... is not aware of that modern technology...

By the way, we have that tech spread in both war fronts right now... if we were that invulnerable the irregular warfare tactics would not have done any damage to the force... As I said, I don't discount it, as the trends are there. And I keep hoping for the best, which is all talk and nothing done... but we have seen an uptick in violence already. It is enough to be of concern.

[MadHound]

64. And you don't think that some of that equipment won't wind up in the wrong hands

We've seen article after article here concerning how white supremacists, militia men, and others of the rabid right wing are going into the army to receive training. We've also seen how fundy RW commanders are prostylytizing across the Army, recruiting "an Army for God." We've seen how the numbers are large and getting larger all the time.

You don't think that these soldiers won't leave the Army in the case of another civil war? You don't think that they won't take as much equipment with them as possible? Hell, there's a slow but steady trickle of arms and armament out of the Army, has been and always will be, even in piece time, and that's grown during these latest wars.

Not to mention the fact that the Feds will be constrained by the notion of civilian deaths, they're not going to want to level a town or kill American civilians. This will handcuff them, at least in the beginning.

Oh, and don't forget how well other under-equipped groups have done against the US lately. The Vietnamese went from using punji sticks and tiger traps to driving out the US. And frankly, we're losing the war in Afghanistan, and have a draw at best in Iraq.

Never underestimate the abilities of those who are driven and desperate.

[ohheckyeah]

76. Oh, I don't underestimate them.

I have my own small arsenal and know how to use it. I don't want the right wing wackos to be the only ones with guns.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. There is a difference between picking up a gun and going to war (and possibly dying)...

...and sitting in your mom's basement eating cheetos with a gun in your lap, posting in freeperville.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Yes, and ... how many of those posting at Freeperville have gone

ahem active in the last six months?

Thank you for playing. This is no joke... and those who under estimate this POSSIBILITY are truly not looking at the whole picture. We have had an uptick in activity already, and even DHS told you this before they had to pull their report back. They were right, by the by.

[lexanman]

29. They dont have the numbers

They lost the last Civil War and they are hugely outnumbered and they know it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Let me repeat this again, civil wars are not started by majorites

If their numbers are really small, it will be short, sharp, and perhaps not even look like one. Oh and this is not about armies marching on each other either. The last one to take that form was quite possibly, the Russian Civil war, and some of Franco's little soiree.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. Oh, good Lord.

Some of your posts are over the top, but this shit takes the cake.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. What a little history takes the cake?

Okie dokie

[sharesunited]

52. Would it give you more confidence in a stable America

if you considered the advantage in the air?

How does a rebel engage in aerial or air to ground combat?

AK's from a piper cub?

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. It is not about confidence, it is about trends

and a civil war is possible. We are talking trends... and these people are offering a nasty trend.

Don't worry, to most Colonials the war of independence was not even in their way of thinking until it started, the same for the Civil War. Few people look at the trends, but they are there.

Oh and as to that... here is a little trick the Iraqis pulled, speaking of air power... you fire enough AK (or any automatic fire) onto the air, and you too can create a lead wall. Some low flying aircraft can and have been shot down this way. (mostly choppers)

I know we have all this technology so all this should be discounted, because the armed forces will put it down in an instant. Sorry if I don't share the optimism, seeing the trends.

Oh and an old maxim of the military applies here too. It does take an 18 year old with a spear, a rifle, or a Laser rifle, in the future, to control real estate. Air power doesn't do it.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Are you under the impression that information was as available

to Colonials as it is to people today? There were people in the back countries who did not know there was a Civil War until it was done. Their internet connections were down I guess. The phone was out too. Cable service unavailable due to geography, and the mid 1800's thing...
Yeah, the Colonials were just like us. Our ability to follow news and 'trends' is exactly the same as it was for a person living in the Mountains of NY in 1773. Exactly the same. Except for the daily instant communication with, in my case alone, 37 States and 6 continents. Daily. Direct. Instant. Just like George Washington had!

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. The technology was different

as it was the way of organizing for war...

But I am not as delusional to think one cannot happen.

Let me ask you a question, because this is what is already happening and part of the trend.

Abortion is legal in the US. We have had a very successful terrorist campaign carried by Operation Rescue and other fellow travelers. Tell me, even though it is legal, how wide spread it is?

That my dear is what a modern civil war looks like. Not the blue and the gray. By the by, that is also a very easily dismissed as a war, especially in a country that still has this idea that a civil war involves armies marching at each other.

And it is time people realize that you organize very differently, and you fight very differently.

Oh and all that crappola about the support of the people... and popular revolutions, given they are fought by minorities, that just sounds nice... propaganda 101.

[lexanman]

36. you are correct they are started by majorities.

They are ended by majorities. The US Civil War most certainly had armies marching on each other, unless you are not up to speed on the history of the US Civil War. Both sides grew in numbers and sides were taken. They lost before, and they would lose again, by a much larger margin. And the next time our side might not be so kind to racist homophobic slave loving Capitalist dicks that survive. Nothing wrong with fighting against evil. The French Revolution was not peaceful.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. You seriously think a second Civil War will be fought by regular armies

No it won't

Also they usually are not ended by majorities, but at a nice negotiating table where things like general amnesties are offered.

Tell me did the end of the Civil War saw the South's cream de la creme of the officer corp lined up and shot? NO

And people are dragged in by the nature of the beast by the way. Not only the Civil War, but EVERY OTHER MODERN civil war. But the romantic view of armies marching on each other is not what modern civil wars are about... if you have a chance watch the Patriot, the portrayal of the Southern Campaign in that movie is pretty accurate as to how a MODERN civil war will look like: Hit and run, and irregular forces.

[lexanman]

49. actually you are right

and I dont agree with others claiming your arguments as representative of freepers. Ive seen plenty of other posts that definitely are freeper type comments. But I think you are not looking at the whole picture. A second Civil War will result in WW3. The minority have control of the gov agencies and nukes and will just start to wipe out the majority insurrection. Its not the tea party types that you have to worry about starting a civil war. They real evil is already infested in our government. And I mean the right wing Cheney types that have been operating for decades. When they start to feel threatened by the population, thats when hell will break loose. There will not be formal lines of troops neatly shooting at one another on a battlefield. It will be guerilla warfare.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. WW 3 is a definite possibility

as well as just nukes on US territory.

And I don't discount those people either, but the USPA... in my view was part of that long view...

[NBachers]

37. Yes and how many of those creepers are fighting in *ahem* Iraq or Afghanistan

or signing up for the military?

"They can fight more strategically for America in a different way."

They've got their chance to put their lives on the line for patriotism. They epic fail. No true gutz.

Chickenshit chicken-sparrows. They don't even deserve to be called chickenhawks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. You do realize some of them have

and that the US Military was concerned about certain elements joining the army for the training...

[Hydra]

2. We all knew the Freepers weren't coming with us into the 21st century

They'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into whatever we manage to build that is better than the system we have currently...and they are GOING to shoot at us.

In case anyone thinks I'm advocating placating them, keep in mind that they were going to shoot us anyway had they "won" the election by fraud again.

[alfredo]

3. I didn't hear a peep about this when bush was in office. White privilege

gets real ugly when threatened.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. You are right, you didn't and it is starting in the same places

the last time around... at least to get real loud...

[alfredo]

16. It's happening in states that get more money back from the Feds than

they give. The blue states are subsidizing them. And they complain about the overbearing federal government? I think it is time for them to start carrying their own weight. Tired of carrying their lazy asses. The old south, the old slave states are leeching off the rest of us. Ungrateful baggage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Include Cali in your list, which gives more than it gets back

for example, but yes, it is concentrated in the old dominion... I wonder why... hmmm

[alfredo]

20. They're over compensating for their inability of caring for themselves.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Actually it is the minority nutsos in Sacramento,

the GOP is the minority, yet they do crap like this... go figure...

[alfredo]

65. They lost and now they want to take their ball and go home.

[eleny]

22. Have you been able to find the most recent chart for the distribution to the states?

Edited to add: I found it
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

[alfredo]

66. No, I haven't but that one gives a good historical perspective.

The states that are not carrying their fair share are causing our deficit to expand. We have to borrow money or take for the productive states like California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Michigan to subsidize the old slave states like Alabama Mississippi, and South Carolina.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Tenth amendment folks, birthers, Obamacare oponents...Oh My.

There is a small but well armed racist conservative minority that is pushing for a confrontation. Look to the midterms next year. If Conservatives don't succeed in regaining power in at least one house, they will feel cornered enough to do something.

These people are acting like the Civil War was never fought, and they want to return us to a Constitution where slavery was legal and Constitutional.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. With the exception of a few states, California for example, that

were territories back in the day, it is mostly concentrated in the antebellum south... and Kansas...

[Ozymanithrax]

11. Like the teabag movement, it is mostly a white power movement.

These are people that think and feel like Pat Buchanan.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. They are the same, fellow travellers indeed

[Bluenorthwest]

63. That phrase is a pip

And it is why I am not engaging in real discussion here. That 'fellow traveler' meme was favored by the Nixon/McCarthy tribe that came after my industry in the 1950s. So when I hear that, I am highly suspicious of any who would use such loaded terminology that has been used to pile injustice on innocent heads. Historically speaking. Seeing such terminologies is a trend, one that I do not take lightly.
If you know your history, you'd know that is a right wing term of oppression. I assume you are not aware of that fact.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. It is a term that has moved on from its origins

like many others have... and now it is part of the POPULAR CULTURE.

Now if you think I want to oppress you by using that term, my apologies.

[Brigid]

9. One of the best bumper stickers I ever saw:

Accompanied by a confederate flag image: "You lost. Get over it."

[Occulus]

10. Hmm. This thread needs a copy of the Tenth.

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.

Drug war. Discuss.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. So do you agree wth secession, due to the drug war?

for the record you will not find a more violent opponent of the 1911 protocol that led to the failure that we know today as the war on drugs, world wide. But do answer this question... do you agree with them?

[apocalypsehow]

27. That's not how debate works, FYI. Whether the poster "agrees" with "them" or not is irrelevant -

it behooves you, in your fevered haste to paint a Civil War II on our horizon, to address the counter-intuitive to your logic.

Now, I seriously doubt you will do so: ad hominem and guilt-by-association seems to be your style, just like the Freepers you claim to despise.

But you might at least try - call it the triumph of hope over experience.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. I asked a seirous question, seems you don't like it

and many of the folks on the anti war on drugs, which got serious under Nixon are fellow travellers of the state rights people. That said, it is a failure and should tomorrow.

Now if asking a question is an ad-hominen attack, whatever, and thank you for comparing me to JimRob and his fellow travellers... after these many years I am no longer surprised.

[apocalypsehow]

39. You constructed an asinine historical parallel, and are now attempting to both change the subject &

move them-there goalposts. That is the stuff of laughter and well-deserved ridicule.

Please try again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Good night, and have a good life

[apocalypsehow]

48. Of course - my argument is irrefutable, and your intellect is not up to the task in any event.

Your concession is graciously accepted.

[apocalypsehow]

41. Oh, and by-the-bye you still haven't addressed the original repliers post. Not that I expect you to:

it's much easier to just keep typing in lieu of thinking for a certain subset of folks, I well understand. You are a proud member of said subset. Just don't start complaining about "unrec," please...

[notesdev]

45. Don't mind what the others say

I know you are onto something substantial here. I have seen it too. The government is to disconnected and unresponsive to the needs of the people and the pot is boiling over.

The thing with the 10th Amendment is, if we are to disregard it, what else in the Constitution may also be disregarded? The bottom line on the document is that it is the agreement by which we get along without shooting each other. If it is demonstrably not in effect, what then holds back the tide?

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. the problem is that the civil war was about state rights

As one of my profs put it, before the civil war, this country was a collection of states, after the civil war it was the United States.

Somewhere along the way we are quickly becoming a collection of states.

[notesdev]

55. The underlying questions remain unresolved

A question put to rest by the use of force only remains at rest while the threat of force remains.

Our nation was not designed to have the federal government reign supreme in all matters - it was explicitly designed not to have that happen, actually. That was done for a reason - the individual states really don't have all that much in common. What does Alaska really have in common with South Carolina? What does Vermont have in common with Alabama? What does Oregon have in common with Kentucky, or Michigan with Arizona?

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. It will take a consitutional convention to disolve the union

or reform the Constitution.

My personal belief is that if we do have an actual civil war, the country will not survive it, for cultural reason. I just hope to be on the right side of the border for my personal belief system... assuming I survive the ugliness.

But state rights were essentially settled during the civil war. So it will take a constitutional convention, and perhaps that is the best course. I don't know. Given that Katrina revealed reporting from a foreign bureau and the same kind of attitude about it, as it happened in a foreign land, perhaps it is time.

[drm604]

24. They lose an election and they threaten to dissolve the union.

Same ol' same ol'.

http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/78500-Cracking-up

As much as so-called Tenth Amendment Movement participants believe they are responding to a unique circumstance, they are actually treading old, and predictable ground. The exact same movement arose when the last Democratic president took office, in 1993. In fact, most of the resolutions circulating today are word-for-word copies of the ones introduced 16 years ago.

By late 1994, at least eight states had passed versions, with legislators in more than 20 states planning to introduce them in their 1995 sessions, according to a review at the time by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The state-sovereignty movement of that time was part of a fabric of anti-government sentiment that also included a rise in the "militia" movement — and the resolutions abruptly ceased in 1995, after Timothy McVeigh blew a hole in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.

Not that I'm dismissing your concerns. The last time they stopped this nonsense after McVeigh. Well, the example of McVeigh is still there and it isn't deterring it any more. I doubt there will be another civil war, as I believe that the true believers are a small minority. The problem is that a small minority of that small minority are likely dangerous and we may have another McVeigh or worse. We've already had several small isolated incidents.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. It is the small isolated incidents that raise my concerns

also the violence has seen a real uptick

And yes I am aware, and also realize that the same kind of resolutions circulated in the South starting in the 1830s on and off.

:-)

The issue at the time was not the right to bear arms, but slavery. You get the point right, in the essence it was state rights.

[maglatinavi]

46. secessionists

There you have the gov of Texas caressing the idea of secession... but after all, Texas is Texas, none like it...red neck, the bible belt ... will he beat Hutchinson??? We'll see ... meanwhile, beware of the McVeighs ...

[Birthmark]

28. Sure, it's similar language.

But this isn't 1861. The knotheads bleating about revolution literally don't have the guns to make it stick. They don't have the backbone, either. Their whining and histrionics are indicative of how they feel, not what they can actually do.

That aside, I support any State that wants to secede from the Union provided they obtain a 2/3rds vote on a State Referendum. If that happens, I will defend their Right to Secede and wish them well on their journey to Third World status.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. What part of trend are people are people having a serious issue

comprehending? There are two points to make here though

You are right, this is not 1961, a more apt comparison perhaps, it is the Kansas little war, the early part... small times actions... if you insist that preceded Sumpter by a few, oh decade.

And the USSC found that secession is a no go, in a case brought by Texas in the 1870s.

[Birthmark]

71. The important point is your last sentence.

The USSC "found"...

They may find something else anytime they choose. Frankly, I wish Lincoln had waved a heart-felt farewell to the South when they seceded. It would have been the right thing to do under the Constitution, imo.

[Ozymanithrax]

54. Todays Civil wars are not like they were in 1861...

They will not march out with Army of Virginia led by a modern Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The model is Intifada. A small group of dedicated people can blow a lot of stuff up, kill a lot of individuals, and make life for the majority hell. When you add a much larger group, unwilling to kill but willing to hide those committing acts of violence, like the Christian groups that hide people who blow up abortion clinics, you have a very ugly little war.

And I don't think secession is legal even with a 2/3rd referendum. Probably a new Constitutional Convention would be necessary to legally and peacefully dissolve the Union.

[Birthmark]

74. Oh, well, if they want to become terrorists...

...they're a dime a dozen these days. Of course even threatening to do so is, imo, terrorism already.

But if they want to secede I believe that a reasonably amicable solution short of a Constitutional Convention will do the trick. It's only an old USSC decision and not the Constitution itself that forbids secession. That decision can easily be ignored by Congress and the President.

[MichaelHarris]

53. Easy one

Gonzales v Raich, replace the words marijuana with guns and bullets and you have the same outcome.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html

[TexasObserver]

59. While I appreciate the historical basis for the 10th, it's effectively HISTORY itself.

It has been gutted, and the gutting has taken place over relentless decades. The federal government cannot be stopped. There will always be a rational basis to justify any form of regulation through legislation. I wish it were not true, but it is. Much good was accomplished this way, but much overreaching has also been accompllished this way. See the federal government's war on medical marijuana.

Nothing Tennessee does can or will stop BATF from enforcing Federal law in Tennessee.

[endarkenment]

60. They can go. Fine with me. nt.

[spanone]

61. i live in the most backward state in the country....redder than red

[Paladin]

68. I Think The Possibility Of A Civil War Is Just Wishful Thinking On Your Part.. (n/t)

[-..__...]

70. They might have a bit of legal precident in theri favor...

at least as far as their "commerce clause" argument goes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart_(2003)

[Romulox]

75. Really, no precedent need be cited for the proposition that the Commerce Clause has no real limit

whatever.

Lopez is an aberration; the line of cases unequivocally state the "Interstate Commerce Clause" may reach entirely intra-state behavior which involves no commerce whatever.

The same tortured logic that underlines Wickard v. Fillburn justifies any intrusion into our lives by the Federal Government into any matter whatsoever--the very act of not choosing to engage in interstate commerce is said to "affect" interstate commerce sufficiently to grant Constitutional jurisdiction.

By this same logic, my choice not to purchase the services of a prostitute grant jurisdiction to regulate my sexual relationships under the Commerce Clause. :eyes:

[notesdev]

77. You pretty much nailed it

as long as the Commerce Clause is interpreted as it is, the rest of the Constitution effectively does not exist. Never mind that there's no way you can square a plain reading of the document's text with the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

IMHO - now mind you I'm no Constitutional scholar here, just a person interested in the rule of law - the Commerce Clause as written is entirely descriptive and is not meant to convey or delegate or assign or otherwise permit any sort of federal government power whatsoever.

[Joanne98]

72. We can use this to legalize POT!