If we had Supreme Court justices who were serious about their oath of office, this would be a slam dunk.
1 posted on
01/25/2010 4:18:00 AM PST by
marktwain
To: marktwain
we have at least 5 that just backed the 1st amendment by defeating McCain Feingold....lets hope they do the right thing with the 2nd
2 posted on
01/25/2010 4:27:16 AM PST by
Vaquero
(BHO....'The Pretenda from Kenya')
To: marktwain
...the FFA declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. I know numerous college students who would not understand the meaning of the word "among" in that sentence. Ask them the difference between inter- and intra-, they shrug. Don't even think about issues of federalism, central govt vs regional; the only ones who do have any familiarity with these terms are self-proclaimed socialists, progressives, etc., and they are hopeless.
To: marktwain; All
You know, I just don't understand this "standing" thing.....
How could they not have standing?
It was like how the presidents BC thing was thrown out of court because a citizen of the US didn't have "standing".......how could a citizen not have "standing"?
4 posted on
01/25/2010 4:47:22 AM PST by
Politically Correct
(A member of the rabble in good standing)
To: marktwain
I would hope to think that even if these educated morons try to outlaw any of our Constitutionally mandated rights that the populous would reject outright their attempts and fight (however one wants to interrupt that) with vehemence and exercise that right.
The bottom line is they can do what they wish, and pass what ever law (unconstitutional) they want. Americans tend to do the right thing regardless of Washington.
9 posted on
01/25/2010 5:16:41 AM PST by
SERE_DOC
(My Rice Krispies told me to stay home & clean my weapons! How does one clean a phase 4 plasma rifle)
To: marktwain
If we had Supreme Court justices who were serious about their oath of office, this would be a slam dunk.You're right, but I'm afraid that they might just go back to precedence on this, using the blatant federal power grab that goes like, "if a manufacturer makes a gun and sells it in state A, then another manufacturer from state B won't be able to sell a gun to that same customer in state A; Hence even when manufacturer and seller are in the same state, the sale of the gun will effect interstate commerce, because now a manufacturer in state B can't sell that customer a gun." That's pretty much the reasoning they came up with to allow the "interstate commerce clause" to run completely wild, just with a farmer growing grain...
Mark
10 posted on
01/25/2010 5:47:05 AM PST by
MarkL
(Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
To: marktwain
Montana's law will work about as well as South Carolina's secession.
11 posted on
01/25/2010 6:01:18 AM PST by
Travis McGee
(---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
To: marktwain
This “standing” is getting to be a real handy legal tool for this bunch.
12 posted on
01/25/2010 7:17:55 AM PST by
Beckwith
(A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
To: marktwain
13 posted on
01/25/2010 7:52:43 AM PST by
PeteCat
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson