"Can you show me where that is written into law?"
Just ask Orval Faubus...
Posted on 02/27/2010 7:33:39 AM PST by marktwain
SALT LAKE CITY -- Gov. Gary Herbert signed a controversial message bill about guns Friday after raising questions just a day before about its cost. His Democratic opponent calls it a mistake that could cost the state millions.
It's called Senate Bill 11. It would exempt Utah from any federal regulations on firearms made and sold within the state.
Thursday, the governor hinted he might veto the bill, due to questions about its constitutionality and the costs of potentially lengthy court fight.
"I don't mind the message. I just don't want to end up having a million dollar cost attached to it, where we have slim chance of winning," Herbert said. "I think we have a slim chance of even getting to the Supreme Court, which is the intent of that particular piece of legislation."
Friday, Herbert signed the bill, saying: "There are times when the state needs to push back against continued encroachment from the federal government." He said he signed the law because it furthers the dialogue without "unduly burdening Utah taxpayers."
But the governor's Democratic opponent, Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon, says with the state facing a $700 million budget deficit, signing the bill was the wrong decision.
"I'm pro-gun. I'm pro-Second Amendment. I'm pro-state sovereignty. But I'm also a fiscal conservative, and I'm concerned that this bill could cost taxpayers up to $10 million," Corroon says.
The same debate is being heard on Capitol Hill over the cost and consequences of a series of so-called message bills.
"Those who criticize generally aren't those who represent a group of constituents. For me personally, my constituents are very pleased with the message bills we run," says Senate Majority Leader Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City.
(Excerpt) Read more at ksl.com ...
Some one in DC will want certs to make sure all the parts of the firearm were made locally. The steel to make it was virgin, made in the state, no scrap steel, Interstate Commerce, can't prove it was local, coal that made to make the steel was local....
Great idea, don't know if it will fly?
Next time the government takes you go to court , hire a plumber .
Already making excuses and they haven't even failed yet. If enough states did this the issue might not NEED to go to the Supremes because the feds would read the tea leaves and back off. If not, SCOTUS has never been averse to allowing public mores to guide their decisions. And if not THAT, there's always the fallback position that a decision by SCOTUS for the feds and against the states is invalid for conflict of interest (because they're a branch of one of the parties in the dispute).
How does that compare with the costs of sucking the feds schlong in perpetuity?
Why accept the burden of proof? They're the ones trying to challenge the law. Let them try to analyze the steel and prove it came from out of state.
Why accept the premise? Before the Roosevelt court, a long standing precedent was that the Constitution and the Commerce clause protected the people from regulation by the National and State government. This was because the right to contract between private parties was considered a natural right.
Oh, I agree. I was just posting to point out that I thought his outlook was invalid, even so far as it went.
I think that changed after Katrina.
"Can you show me where that is written into law?"
Just ask Orval Faubus...
(Probable cause: inadvertent three-finger "page back" swipe on "multitouch" trackpad...) Apologies to all...
Defending the rights of residents is one of the reasons we DO have state governments. Fear of courtroom controversy over such a matter should be one of the LAST items over which cost concerns should dominate.
I just used the “abuse” nutton to ask the mods to pull my #50 mistake...
Nothing and I mean Nothing prevents ANY STATE from SIEZING the Assets of FEDERAL EMPLOYEES to be used to Fight the Federal Government in court. That’s what the KELO decision was all about. Now the first Governor to be so bold and actually do it, will start the restoration of our republic.
Thank you!
“If limited govenment is to survive in the USA, we must bring the Federal government back to within constitutional limits.”
Indeed, this is the signal most important issue we can ever be dealing with. as to the huge dept the States are running, a huge chuck of that is due to the Obligations pushed upon our states by the Federal Government, we cant really get the budget under-control until we get the Unconstitutional Federal mandates to stop.
Congress has been trying to spend OUR money and OUR liberty , without concern you our ability to pay for it. as a result the wast-full spending they have been forcing upon our States and thus we the Tax payers to bare just to get a portion of our federal tax money back has to end!
We can not be put into a position of either subsiding the rest of the United States or following the wasteful dictates of Washington D.C. We simply can’t continue to make ends meet like this.
“>The Federal government can activate the Guard against the wishes of the governor.<
>Can you show me where that is written into law?”
The Feds could in theory if the State does not use their authority in training and officer selection to purge the officer core of any National guard officers willing to follow federal orders over state objections.
Basically its a matter of State incompetent if Our national Guard mobilizes against the state rather then in support of the State.
If your State government has not already done so it needs to be going thou the officer list of the State National guard and get rid of any federal agents possibly disloyal to the state.
An officer position in the state National guard is less about your military skill then it is about your loyalty to the State. Skill is nothing but a liability without loyalty.
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.