[Who is John Galt?]

The powers delegated to both Federal & State governments come from the individual people of America. We the people defined the extent of powers delegated in our Constitution & Amendments.

Actually, “the powers delegated to both Federal & State governments come from” the people of the individual States. And if (by “we the people”) you are referring to ‘the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole,’ you are referring to a people that (in the words of Mr. Justice Thomas) “the Constitution does not contemplate … will either exercise power or delegate it.”

The states must obey our constitution & amendments, just as they ratified them.

The States are bound by the specific terms of the Constitution of the United States. In the words of Senator Robert Augustus Toombs of Georgia:

“…[T]he Constitution is a compact. It contains all our obligations and the duties of the Federal Government…I say that the Constitution is the whole compact. All the obligations, all the chains that fetter the limbs of [the people of Georgia], are nominated in the bond…”

The States are not, however, thereby required to comply with ‘unwritten law,’ or (if we are to believe Mr. Jefferson & Mr. Madison) with the dictates of federal judges that ‘palpably’ violate the Constitution.

This article is a typical 'states rights' piece of agit-prop, intended to justify state government infringements upon individual rights.

On the contrary, I would suggest that the public comments of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison properly define the “states rights” position…

;>)

Unable to change the US Constitutions guarantees of personal liberties, the statists attempt an 'end around' by claiming States can ignore them.

Given that “statists” promote the concentration of economic and political power in government, a more common occurrence might be described thusly: “unable to change the US Constitutions guarantees of personal liberties” (such as the First & Second Amendments), “the statists attempt an 'end around' by claiming” the federal government can ignore the Constitution (often by means of federal judicial fiat).

For example, the federal ‘campaign finance reform’ law restricts my First Amendment rights in ways that the laws of my State certainly do not. And the federal ‘assault weapons ban’ infringes my Second Amendment right to own a ‘politically incorrect’ self-loading firearm - even though the laws of my State do not.

;>)

[Cold Heat]

On the contrary, I would suggest that the public comments of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison properly define the “states rights” position…

Looking at it objectively, the tension between the states and the Fed is a good thing and not a bad one.

Anything other would indeed be Federalism and total government control.

The fights over this power are welcome and needed to keep everyone one their toes.IMO:-)

[tpaine]

"-- the federal 'assault weapons ban' infringes my Second Amendment right to own a 'politically incorrect' self-loading firearm - even though the laws of my State do not."
;>)
61 -JG-


______________________________________


The federal 'assault weapons ban' also infringes my Second Amendment right to own a 'politically incorrect' self-loading firearm..
- And, -- the so called laws of my State [CA], absolutely prohibit the ownership of certain even more 'evil' weapons.

Do you agree that the people of the state of CA have the power to prohibit possession of such weapons?

[robertpaulsen]

And the federal ‘assault weapons ban’ infringes my Second Amendment right to own a ‘politically incorrect’ self-loading firearm manufactured after September 13, 1994 - even though the laws of my State do not.

But you knew that. Once the ban expires, I suggest you stock up to your heart's content.