Posted on 04/01/2011 12:00:27 PM PDT by maine yankee
An Act To Prohibit Enforcement of Federal Laws in Violation of the Constitution of the United States
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?LD=1172&snum=125
SUMMARY This bill expresses the findings of the Legislature that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution is valid for the regulation of interstate commerce but not intrastate commerce. The bill prohibits a federal or state official, agent or employee from enforcing a federal act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation that attempts to regulate goods grown, manufactured or made in this State or services performed in this State. Violation by a federal official is a Class C crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. Violation by a state official is a Class D crime, punishable by less than one year in prison and a fine of up to $2,000.
What I need is very specific cases where the federal rulers om the alphabets in DC have overstepped their authority.
Try to keep the examples to 2 or 3 sentences, as will be reciting them in my testimony.
Thanks for your help.
Not sure what you are talking about.
United States Constitution Article I, Sections 8 and 10; Article 6; and the 10th Amendment:
A primary concern of the framers in drafting the U.S. Constitution was to balance power between the states and the federal government. One method of striking this balance was to give the states a measure of control over the selection of federal officers and, as a result, the operation of the federal government. Thus, article I, section 2 gives the states an active role in determining electoral qualifications for purposes of electing members of the U.S. House of Representatives; article I, section 3, as originally ratified, gave each state equal representation in the U.S. Senate and required each senator to be selected by the state legislature; and article II, section 1 gives the states an active role in selecting presidential electors. Under the Supremacy Clause, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is preempted.Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).A conflict exists if a party cannot comply with both state law and federal law (for example, if state law forbids something that federal law requires). Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963).In addition, even in the absence of a direct conflict between state and federal law, a conflict exists if the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372-73 (2000). It will thus be important to remember your State must set forth explicit authority under the 10th amendment, excluding all potential conflicts. Finally, your State may have to stop taking federal money, since this is just one vehicle under which the federal government gets their "foot in the door" to controlling your State. Stop sending tax dollars tot he federal government, therefore none will need to be returned to your State! Good luck!
An example;
The new food safety bill allows the FDA to control and regulate farms. Food grown in Maine and sold in Maine should not fall under the FDA’s thumb.
If I am correct, what you have found is a law that makes the part of obammycare that makes you buy medical insurance is not legal in Maine.
Someone tell me where I’m wrong.........
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.