Posted on 01/20/2022 7:21:10 AM PST by rktman
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Although vehicle safety devices are indispensable imo, patriots are reminded that the only power that the states have expressly constitutionally delegated to the federal government to deal with safety is limited to the context of Writ of Habeous Corpus as it pertains to rebellion or invasion, corrections, insights welcome.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions [emphasis added];
"Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it [emphasis added]."
"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, the following paragraph by Justice Joseph Story not only explains how the Commerce Clause is not to be interpreted, but Story uses “manufactures” (manufactured goods) as an example of something that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate.
"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? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphases added]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
Also, the Supreme Court had clarified in Reid v. Covert that the federal government cannot use it's power to make treaties as a back door to expand the federal government's powers.
"The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." —Reid v. Covert, 1957.
So neither can Congress use its power to make treaties as a way around its limited Commerce Clause powers to dictate to foreign manufacturers how to make products exported to USA imo.
Finally, one of the reasons that the very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress is continually overstepping its constitutionally limited powers is this. After the shrinking majority of early FDR era, Supreme Court justices had clarified Congress's constitutionally limited powers in terms of the 10th Amendment (10A) as the excerpt from United States versus Butler above shows, FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices later wrongly politically “repealed” 10A in Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard).
More specifically, using inappropriate words like “concept” and “implicit,” also references to manufacturing, here is what was left of 10A after FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices got finished with it in Wickard.
"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 [???] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as "production," manufacturing, and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause [??? emphasis added]." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
This politically correct "insight" of FDR's justices into 10A has arguably been used as a license to justify unconstitutional federal interference in the affairs of the sovereign states since SCOTUS wrongly decided Wickard in Congress's favor imo.
Corrections, insights welcome.
The ultimate remedy for unconstitutionally big, alleged election-stealing, Democratic Party-pirated federal and state governments, allegedly manufacturing crises to oppress everybody under their boots...
Consider that the states effectively have "veto power" over continued unpopular, unconstitutional actions of the feds.
More specifically, all the states can effectively “secede” from the unconstitutionally big federal government by doing the following.
Patriots need to primary federal and state elected officials who don't send voters email ASAP that clearly promises to do the following.
Federal and state lawmakers need to promise in their emails to introduce resolutions no later than 100 days after start of new legislative sessions that proposes an amendment to the Constitution to the states, the amendment limited to repealing the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments (16&17A), little or no discussion required imo.
In fact, I challenge the states to ram the repeal amendment for 16&17A through the ratification process faster than Nancy Pelosi irresponsibly rammed unconstitutional Obamacare through the House. /semi-sarc
Again, insights welcome.
So your car isn’t yours.
With the proper tools/equipment, one can build practically anything needed for the “classics”.
Yep. What you won't be able to do is insure it. "Sorry, sir, but we require proof of a monitoring system in order to activate this policy." And "Sorry, sir, no license plate if you don't have proof of insurance."
There are a boatload of videos on YT showing guys in Afghanistan and those places rebuild and reproduce all kinds of parts for cars and trucks. It is absolutely amazing what can be done with next to no tools.
“no license plate if you don’t have proof of insurance”
Depending upon the state, 9-30% of cars are uninsured.
In the future, assets like stocks and bonds will be become a liability. That is because they are liquid and they can be easily found and seized. You will become a slave trying to retain those assets. Better will be land with modest shelters in undesirable areas, and some practical skills that will give you something to barter. You want to be judgement proof. Then you don’t need no car insurance
Just having a satellite receiver somewhere in the vehicle passively waiting to receive a shutdown signal, would be nearly pointless because it could easily be found and disabled.
They will have to make it so that you can’t operate the car unless it receives coded satellite signals periodically. The function will have to be integrated into the microprocessor chip in the power train control module (PCM).
Disabling the remote shutdown will entail replacing the PCM. If the practice becomes widespread they will probably legislate against it.
Probably have to insert some sort of system check trick to fool the computers. No signal, no start. After you scan your CONvid QR code of course. LOL!
Be sure to read the article about what the EU wanted to do thd first time around.
And hey, UK, how's about that Brexit, eh?
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.