Where in the Constitution is the authority given to the feds to interfere in this matter?
Where in the Constitution is the authority given to the feds to interfere in this matter?
Commerce clause of course.
Right next to the prohibition against weed. Gov will say they are doing it for your own good and interstate commerce and anything else. Whatever it takes to create more criminals... and the need for more government.
“Where in the Constitution is the authority given to the feds to interfere in this matter?”...………
Constitution? “We don’t need no stinking Constitution’ say the demodummies who have proven it over and over again.
“Where in the Constitution is the authority given to the feds to interfere in this matter?”
Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee etc could see this kind of crap coming.
Thanks for posting thoughtomator.
Not only did traitor Alexandor Hamilton weaken the idea of a constitutionally limited power federal government with his wide interpretation of the “necessary and proper clause” (1.8.18) to justify a national bank, but the politically correct interpretation of the post-17th Amendment ratification, FDR era Commerce Clause finished the job of effectively repealing the fed’s constitutionally limited powers imo.
Note that state sovereignty-respecting constitutional experts have always been aware of the dangers of politically correct, wide interpretations of the fed’s constitutionally limited powers.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution?” —Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2, 1833.
H O W E V E R …
Consider that FDR's justices overturned case precedents established by Gibbons v. Ogden, Paul v. Virginia, and United States v. Butler, cases which emphasized the already clear limits on Congress's Commerce Clause powers.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." -Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance, regardless if buyer and seller are domeciled in different states.)
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, using inappropriate words like “concept” and “implicit,” here is what was left of the 10th Amendment after FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices got finished with it when they wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor imo.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.