If we’re going by the Constitution, then Montana’s laws are not necessary because the federal laws they are working around are inherently unconstitutional. If we’re not following the Constitution, then this is no doubt covered by the power to tax, and Justice Roberts will side with the far left extremists.
If the government is not operating under what gives it any authority at all, the Constitution,
then it is operating out of sheer thuggery,
and it has no legitimate authority other than its ability to use force to make us comply.
They no longer operate under the prime foundation of Western government - the consent of the governed.
Roberts might not have a say if the 9th Circuit ruling isn’t appealed or the SC refuses to hear the case on appeal.
But if the insurgent gov’t is not adhering to the Constitution, don’t the States have the right to merely adhere to the Constitution?
the Constitution limits claims of implied power under the Commerce Clause, as confirmed by the Necessary and Proper Clause. Based on Federalist Nos. 28, 31, 33 and 51, we contended that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were meant to work in tandem to confirm that the states may exercise their reserved powers to secure constitutional liberty against federal overreach. In other words, the Founders fully intended for the people to resist federal usurpation through their state representatives passing laws such as the Montana Firearms Freedom Act to protect freedoms guaranteed by the Second and Ninth Amendments.
Between them and the apellants' argument SCOTUS is in a tight spot. Which do you deny - bad precendent or Constitutional limitations?
It's messy for the statists and there's a strong bias toward federalism on the current court.