Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DesertRhino
The *point* is that Montana says thats not valid and is a dishonest unconstitutional interpretation of the commerce clause.

Maybe so, but then Montana is ignoring years and years of accepted pecedent and law. And, while I AGREE - it is doubtful they can prevail in todays environment. These types of challanges need to be made when the decisions are first handed down - not years - decade or centuries later!!

87 posted on 05/06/2009 8:41:42 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]


To: An.American.Expatriate

Oh my! Montana ignoring precedent? Why is that a matter when the Feds are doing the mexican hat dance on the constitution and on every principle this country was founded on?

You cant have it both ways.

A socialist dictatorship is being finalized. It certainly will not stand in the long run. And it will probably not be decided in a courtroom. It will either be an angry vote, or an angry revolt that stops it.

You are simply not seeing the Montana law for what it truly means.


103 posted on 05/06/2009 9:05:32 AM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson