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

Skip to comments.

Goldwater Institute - Groundbreaking US Supreme Court decision on the Tenth Amendment
http://arizonateaparty.ning.com/ ^ | June 17 2011 | Arizona Tea Party

Posted on 06/18/2011 8:36:30 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

1 posted on 06/18/2011 8:36:32 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Outstanding!


2 posted on 06/18/2011 8:38:24 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (I'll have what the gentleman on the floor is drinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Bump


3 posted on 06/18/2011 8:38:46 AM PDT by CitizenM (If we ever forget that we're one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.-Ronald Re)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

It harkens back to that whole Bill of Rights thing that liberals like to forget is for individuals.


4 posted on 06/18/2011 8:39:38 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Join the AFL-CIO. The Communist Party needs new blood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Why haven’t we seen this reported by the main stream media?
Let me guess, they are communist sympathizers!


5 posted on 06/18/2011 8:40:03 AM PDT by Roklok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

My first thought was how helpful this is to the VA suit our AG Cuccinelli brought vs. Obamacare. VA had enacted a law that prohibited the mandate that is key to O’care.


6 posted on 06/18/2011 8:42:35 AM PDT by EDINVA ( CHANGE it back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Supreme Court Allows Defendant’s 10th Amendment Challenge in Paramour Poison Case

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_allows_defendants_10th_amendment_challenge_in_paramour_poison/


7 posted on 06/18/2011 8:45:15 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
The Court unanimously held...

Interesting.

Why would the collectivists on the high court side with the conservatives?

Just wondering...

8 posted on 06/18/2011 8:46:45 AM PDT by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

sfl


9 posted on 06/18/2011 8:47:33 AM PDT by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

The problem is...The Federal Government usurped the powers of the states very early on. The indian treaty law of 1790 is an example.


10 posted on 06/18/2011 8:56:03 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
Several things going on in this case. One of them is the question of whether or not the existence of a federal law on a topic necessarily pre-empts state laws on the same topic, e.g. marijuana, cocaine, illegal aliens, gasoline sales, use of WMDs, etc.

That right there would grab the attention of 5 of the justices. Now, for the other 4 ~ what is the deal? Well, there's this business of an individual having a right to attempt to kill a romantic rival and yet have it tried under state law rather than federal law.

I think you don't have to go further than that ~ state courts are no doubt kinder to elderly ladies than are federal courts, and the women's prisons are closer to home ~ meaning friends and family can visit.

That actually takes care of only 3 of them because there's this mind-numbed Leftwingtard guy left, so why would he vote for that.

I'm guessing that if we go back through his legal history we will find BUSINESS cases where a treaty caused the federales to go one way whereas his friends on Wallstreet would have preferred New York's rules!

11 posted on 06/18/2011 8:59:05 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
The Constitution of 1790 federalized dealings with Indians.

Not that the Constitution was followed all that closely. New York State figured out a way around it. They declared that the Oneida Indians, earstwhile American allies in the Revolutionary War, were, in fact, white folks, then argued that white folks couldn't own an Indian reserve. They then seized the land and sold it off to illegal aliens.

Not much different than the way things get handled these days.

12 posted on 06/18/2011 9:01:37 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

wonderful news! thank you for posting this.


13 posted on 06/18/2011 9:03:01 AM PDT by Elendur (the hope and change i need: Sarah / Colonel West in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
You mean that citizen Lionheart247365 can now challenge ObamneyCare in the state of Maryland ??? ( Right !!!!! ( sarc )

Sounds great ,,, but the state attorney general is in the pocket of the Socialist/Communist governor o’Mally . We may need the Contras to liberate our state from the liberals excessive oppression first ,,, or perhaps a “FAST and Furious” Gunwalker type program to arm the citizenry against the tyrants .

Our Governor is very much like the bamster ,,, he imposed a millionaires tax in the state a couple years back and most of our wealthiest citizens have moved from the state . Now he's got to go back to the middle class to recover the lost revenue . How brilliant is all that ???

WELCOME TO THE NANNY STATE OF MARYLAND .

14 posted on 06/18/2011 9:04:46 AM PDT by lionheart 247365 (-:{ GLENN BECK is 0bama's TRANSPARENCY CZAR }:-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

What case was this from?


15 posted on 06/18/2011 9:24:12 AM PDT by Traveler59 ( Truth is a journey, not a destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Traveler59

There`s a link to the USSC:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf


16 posted on 06/18/2011 9:26:57 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Traveler59
Never mind. I read the article and followed the link to the USSC decision. Nasty case, that one.
17 posted on 06/18/2011 9:28:38 AM PDT by Traveler59 ( Truth is a journey, not a destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

(( ping ))

This is a very encouraging ruling. The implications are far-reaching, if I understand this correctly.


18 posted on 06/18/2011 9:30:39 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears

Bttt


19 posted on 06/18/2011 9:33:37 AM PDT by Cottonbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

OHHH!!! HONEY HUSH!! IT IS GAME TIME!

Of course, the cynical side of me says that this is just a way for all challenges to federal abuses to be exhausted more quickly . . .

Hmmmm. Double edged, BUT STILL IT IS A SWORD!


20 posted on 06/18/2011 9:35:17 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

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.

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