[Pantera]

More at the links about this. For a while I have thought that way to fight our federal government gone mad was through state rights. It sounds like some people that are much smarter than me have some up with a way to take-on a supreme court decision that has formed the foundation for misusing the interstate commerce clause of the constitution for all kinds of federal abuse of power. Regardless, this is very interesting stuff.

[BlueStateBlues]

Most liberals take the blue pill.

[blam]

I wish Glenn would keep hammering ACORN.

ACORN is truly a threat to America.

[liberty_lvr]

I listened to most of his show today.

I know Beck's passion and big heart is part of his appeal, but he sounded like he was off the reservation with this Matrix stuff.

I'm a certified lunatic so if it sounded way out to me, it must have been really weird for the stiffs out there...

[myself6]

This is the way to do it. In fact, its the ONLY way to do it without killing people.

If every state that cares about freedom started enacting laws like this and more... Laws specifically designed to cut the chains... We WOULD be able to break the central governments back.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Those two ACORN ladies he had on his show are the most amazing, intelligent folks I have heard in a long time if ever.

I could have listened to them 24/7. They really had some revealing facts.

I probably will not be able to sleep well tonight of what they revealed.

[El Gato]

So I should probably use Montana. If it is made in Montana, purchased in Montana and remains in Montana, there is no reason the federal government should have any regulation on that gun.

Didn't California or Oregon try to do much the same, only it was marijuana, not arms?

[oblomov]

See Wickard v. Filburn. That was the case that set precedent for the SCOTUS to presume that ANY transaction, even if all of the supporting transactions are entirely within a state, MIGHT affect interstate commerce, and thus is under jurisdiction of the federal leviathan.

In the case of Wickard, they SCOTUS observed that wheat raised and sold in Kansas still influenced the wheat price elsewhere, thus the commerce could be regulated by the feds.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[El Gato]

From the link:

I think it was 1941 or maybe 1942, about a farmer who just wanted to grow wheat. He was only growing wheat. He was grinding it. His wife was making bread. He wasn't selling it. He was doing it himself. The government made the case that he couldn't do that without federal regulation. It was fought in court. It was finally decided. That one case changed America. When that one case happened, now everything now you had to have certain hour workweek. Now you had to have federal regulations of hourly wages. Now the state could tell every businessman, every farm owner, every individual exactly what to do. Forget about the state. It was the State with a capital S. It changed and buried our Constitution and our founders' dream. What they're doing in Montana is challenging that, in the way that the justices have been waiting.

The case was, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

Read it and barf.

But, OTOH, even earlier, much the same Court found that "infringing" on the right to keep and bear arms was OK, as long as it was done under the power to tax, and the arms were Not in Common Use. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

[Salvey]

Back in the 60's, when I was with the FDA, we established federal jurisdiction over amphetamines that were manufactured and sold within a given state by introducing evidence that the constituent chemicals were produced out of state, and hence subject to the interstate commerce clause. I can foresee a situation where the Holder DOJ would claim that the feds could step in because, say, the steel used in the firearms was produced outside of the state in which the gun was assembled.

[atomic_dog]

What shuts the matrix off?

Guns! Lots of guns!

[kaehurowing]

Is Glenn the One to take on Agent Obama?

[marsh2]

Read Rhenquist’s opinion in US v Lopez No. 93-1260, (93-1260), 514 U.S. 549 (1995) clarifying the boundaries of the application of the Interstate Commerce Clause: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html