Posted on 02/21/2010 9:46:46 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
Or just have one gunshop, way back in the Bayou.
“Case law does not change the powers of Government. Our Government was designed to have only those power specifically enumerated by the constitution. If they have usurped additional powers, and EVEN IF THE USSC AGREES WITH THOSE USURPATIONS, it is still not a legitimate power of Government.”
Nice try. Case law has had a tremendous impact on the Supreme Court for a very long time. The purpose of those nine Justices is to interpret the Constitution. I’m sure they do so in ways our founders would scorn if they were alive today.
I do understand what you’re saying, and agree 100%. But the reality of our present state of government is considerably different than originally intended. I quote the CATO Insititute below to demonstrate orininal intent of the welfare and commerce clauses.
However, our citizens keep voting into office representatives and senators who legislate powers to the government that you and I don’t see enumerated in the Constitution. The the regulation of food and drugs (the result of public demand for protection from unscrupulous manufacturers), is an example of a government office that shouldn’t exist but does BECAUSE the public demanded it exist to protect general welfare.
BATFE, in my opinion, shouldn’t exist because alchohol, tobacco, and firearm possession is legal. If all three are legal, why continue to fund this government office?
The following is an excerpt from the CATO Institute’s booklet, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, (copyright 2004), p.5 - 6:
“To illustrate how enumeration limits powers, consider the General Welfare Clause of Article I, section 8. Were the passage containing that clause to read simply as authorizing Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare, as some read it today, Congress would have been granted all but unlimited power and the enumeration of other powers would have been to no purpose. Thus the passage must be read as permitting spending only for enumerated ends;...the power given to Congress to regulated “commerce among the states” could not have been a power to regulate anything that “affects” commerce, which in principle is everything, for that too would have made pointless any limits imposed by enumeration...the Commerce Clause was meant primarily to restrain state power: to ensure the free flow of goods and services among the states...”
I’m sure you know the above quite thoroughly. I inserted for those here at FR who do not.
Good overview, but you missed a tweak:
“The Feds underestimated Weaver, who would not play ball and who failed to appear in court over the incident. The Feds staked him out, which led to gunplay and the rest of the incident.”
The tweak is ... Weaver was fully prepared to go to court and defend himself by claiming entrapment (because the Fed asked Weaver to saw off the barrel of the shotgun). However, while everyone else was given one date for the trial (e.g., Feb 13th), Weaver’s copy of the of the notice mailed to him was a different date (e.g., March 13th). So Weaver did not show up on the trial date, and the judge issued a bench warrant. When Weaver’s lawyer informed him that he had failed to appear, Weaver then decided that the BATF had set him up again, and refused to come in to resolve this new problem.
Months passed with this standoff until a newspaper published a story about the “scoff-law”, and the new Federal Attorney decided it should be resolved. So the Federal Marshalls were ordered to go get him. They did a soft probe, and were discovered by Weaver’s friend, young son, and dog hunting for deer. One Marshall was afraid of being discovered so he shot the dog; Weaver’s son pointed his rifle at the Marshall and asked why he shot his dog; the other Marshall then shot the son, and the friend killed one of the Marshalls. The friend brought Weaver’s son’s body back to the cabin. The FBI showed up and surrounded the place. Even though Weaver never fired a shot at the FBI, the FBI issued orders to shoot anyone with a gun; Horiuchi shot at Weaver and killed his wife.
I was not suprised that Horiuchi was promoted; I am surprised that Hourichi is still alive.
I think you need to do more research.
I stand by my statement. What happened in both instances was a tragedy. But we need to understand the (still standing) claim of federal authority in both cases was excise taxes. Manufacture or possession of automatic weapons or destructive devices requires a federal excise tax stamp. Without it you will be convicted of a federal felony. In many states it is legal to own them, given you have jumped throught the government hoops and paid the federal stamp tax. That the federal government saw fit to murder untold people over what by constitutional authority originated as a tax dispute, says all I need to know.
For what its worth, prior to Richard Nixon's war on drugs (when there was still an inkling of respect for our Constitution) the Federal governments sole authority over "illegal" drugs was excise tax stamps. That is was impossible to acquire a stamp for, say, opium or heroin was moot. Possession required a tax stamp. No stamp - meant you have broken the law.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
North Dakota actually printed tax stamps for marijuana. It was intended to be an additional charge which could be levied, but would have made a neat collector's item. However, to require someone to purchase a tax stamp to posess something illegal is to require that they incriminate themselves--in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The Fedgov's way out is to require the stamp in advance of the procurement.
As for both Ruby Ridge and Waco, I stand by my statements. I was on days off and watched the testimony in the congressional hearings, and have drawn information from sources not found in the media. The bottom line was that Weaver was entrapped, and then would not become an informant in order to get out of the charge.
That he was freed says enough.
Most of the Branch Davidians did not have that option, and if you will research the trial of the survivors you will find some serious irregualrities there as well.
The testimony in the Congressional hearings was that a delivery driver had noticed grenade casings in a ruptured parcel and that was the excuse the Feds used to obtain a warrant, not an excise tax stamp wiolation in re: automatic weapons.
The novelty items were well known at the time, the Davidians sold them at gun shows, and they were commonly offered in catalogues from a variety of sources.
Continue to believe in whatever fables you will, that does not change the fact that there were numerous abuses of Federal power from the M.O.V.E. firebombing (the incindiary device which was supposed to set the roof on fire and end the 'standoff' penetrated the roof and the resultant fire burned down an entire block) to Weaver, to Waco, to Medina, North Dakota, and others where what could have been relatively simple arrests in broad daylight were turned into violent and deadly attacks by Federal officers on groups of people in which the Federal Government operatives used excessive and inappropriate (deadly) force, and the people responded in self-defense.
Hiding the actions of those Federal agents behind a badge or attacking people over a relatively small sum for a tax stamp does not make those actions acceptable.
Would you kill 76 people over $200.00?
You are no less the master just because your rabid pitbull has trapped you in the bathroom. When a subordinate is no longer loyal, the master, even those prone to err on the side of kindness, will be forced to accept the situation or take serious action to restore the proper order.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
—Samuel Adams
You should cower in the tub, hopefully one of us will show up shortly...
Thanks in advance...
This is from my former posting.
“However, our citizens keep voting into office representatives and senators who legislate powers to the government that you and I don’t see enumerated in the Constitution. The regulation of food and drugs (the result of public demand for protection from unscrupulous manufacturers), is an example of a government office that shouldn’t exist but does BECAUSE the public demanded it exist to protect general welfare.”
Maybe you have me mixed up with someone else, but I NEVER said the Constitution gives the fed authority over food and drugs.
Apparently I was really late to this party and was responding to statements made before clarification was offered...please ignore...
That’s OK. Done that myself. No biggie.
... except MJ isn’t protected by the 2nd amendment, but, yes, the dissent in Raich was on solid ground, constitutionally. It would have been a Revolution more drastic than the one against King George, however.
Mr BATF — meet Mr. Remington...And Mr. Winchester...And Mr. Colt...And Mr. Savage...And Mr. Ruger...
Please, understand, you can come looking to take them, but if you do, they’ll be gunning for you — so to speak...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.