Resolutions of Independence in 10 States…What IS this?

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/ ^ | 2009-02-06 | Texas Darlin

[redhotright]

TexasDarlin says

"I came across this top WordPress post.

The blogger later clarifies that these states have not enacted legislation yet; these are apparently proposed resolutions.

Does anyone know what’s going on? Seriously. Are these resolutions common in recent history, or is this a new trend? I am seeking accurate and well-researched explanations and analysis.

..."

[Obamageddon]

That’s hilarious. Strictly based on historical ties, which can be severed. The Southwest has it’s own problems. California can go back to Mexico as far as I’m concerned. It’s heading there anyway.

[Kevmo]

interesting enough place to bump the thread for later

[JSteff]

“That’s hilarious. Strictly based on historical ties,”

The “native Americans” had the whole country first. They probably also thing the whole think is hilarious. Strictly based on historical ties and all.

[JSteff]

“That’s hilarious. Strictly based on historical ties,”

They “native Americans” had the whole country first. They probably also thing the whole think is hilarious. Strictly based on historical ties and all.

And NONE of OUR territory can be ceded. Even the native Americans hated dealing with the Mexicans. Many fought at the Alamo.

[CowboyJay]

Dontfukwithustan.

LOL! That's great. Could probably get most of the Great Basin to come along as the Autonomous Region of Outer Mormonistan and have ourselves a nice little country.

I'm sure chunks of the Deep South would like to join up as well. Call it Y'allistan?

[Mr. K]

I am hazy on remembering the details, but the “Interstate Commerce” clause was used to pervert what was otherwise a good piece of legislation.

I heard a long discussion about it once. The whole thing signed into law was designed fairly well, but the ‘Interstate Commerce” clause has been used time and again to DO THE OPPOSITE of the original intent of the entire act.

Does anyone know what was the name of the original bill or law or act that the IC “clause” was a part of?

While I am hazy on the details I remember it as a turning point in my life where I realized exactly how perverse politicians can be, and how they make use of a design flaw in the language to do whatever the hell they want.

[Defiant]

The Constitution provides that Congress is empowered to regulate interstate commerce. This is a good thing, it allows the US to be one economic unit. In the 1930s and continuing thereafter, the Interstate Commerce Clause was perverted to allow the Congress to regulate anything that indirectly might affect interstate commerce. Thus, a barbershop in a town of 500 with not interstate business activity has been held to affect interstate commerce.

What current interpretation means is that everything imaginable affects interstate commerce, and therefore, the feds can regulate everything. The only activities that the states are in charge of anymore are those that the feds haven't decided to take over yet. But they could if they wanted to, no matter how small or local.

The IC clause just needs to be clarified to prevent this expansive reading, so that we can have a federal system once again.

[berdie]

later