Skip to comments.
MONTANA DEFIES FEDS - THREATENS SECESSION!
Post Scripts ^
| 5/4/09
| Jack Lee
Posted on 05/05/2009 11:31:04 AM PDT by OneVike
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 281-296 next last
To: BigSkyFreeper
Yup, just over the Bozeman pass from my old stomping grounds. My Grandfather really disliked him and his buddies from Hollywierd.
121
posted on
05/05/2009 1:02:33 PM PDT
by
OneVike
(Just a Christian waiting to go home)
To: Scythian
Now if you just change “release” to “realize”, you’re good. Unless I missed something. ;-)
122
posted on
05/05/2009 1:03:15 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: OneVike
The other large land owner is Ted Turner, who I think owns land in 4 western states, two of which are Montana and Wyoming. His buffalo farm is the reason brucellosis has been spreading through the beef industry.
123
posted on
05/05/2009 1:04:12 PM PDT
by
BigSkyFreeper
(There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity)
To: cizinec
...although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. United States v. Lopez
I think there is wiggle room here. If Montana enacts these laws does it have a substantial effect on interstate commerce? In light of some recent cases (US v. Morrison) I would look forward to this law being tested by SCOTUS. You should read Thomas' dissent in Gonzales v. Raich. It sounds like he wants to overturn Wickard v. Filburn. I hope he can convince some others on the court.
124
posted on
05/05/2009 1:04:16 PM PDT
by
Straight Vermonter
(Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
To: Still Thinking
I fail to see a problem. I'm not being critical of the article or the Montana initiative. It is the right thing to do and the Constitution is on their side. I just wanted to point out that the courts are not on there side. The Interstate Commerce clause of our Constitution has been distorted in a way that basically gives the Federal Government a free hand to legislate any kind of business activity they like.
So the people of Montana have their work cut out for them. I don't' think they would win their case in today's Supreme Court (you would need Kennedy to go along) and the future isn't looking very bright.
And the idea of secession really isn't going anywhere. As a practical matter, Montana would have to assume their share of the current $11 trillion Federal debt, an impossible burden on any government entity that lacks the power to print their own money.
To: dools007
Exactly. Republicans are almost as bad at infringing on proper state issues as long as it’s on social issues. See Raich.
126
posted on
05/05/2009 1:04:36 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: Dead Corpse
I agree but the older the decision is the harder it is to overturn it.
127
posted on
05/05/2009 1:06:22 PM PDT
by
Straight Vermonter
(Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
To: OneVike
Better decide who to follow on this - Justice Thomas or Justice Scalia. Can't have it both ways:
Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
-J. Scalia concurring, Gonzales v Raich
_____________________________________
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
J. Thomas dissenting, Gonzales v Raich
128
posted on
05/05/2009 1:06:52 PM PDT
by
Ken H
To: InterceptPoint
I'm not being critical of the article or the Montana initiative. It is the right thing to do and the Constitution is on their side. I just wanted to point out that the courts are not on there side.Oh, I know, believe me. If the courts had their head out of their hind sides MT wouldn't be making noises like this, because even Obama would be restrained from most of the stuff he's fscking up.
129
posted on
05/05/2009 1:06:59 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: BigSkyFreeper
Yea, I knew that. They are good buddies and both spend big bucks effecting laws. Fortunately they must have lost on this or have stake in a few gun manufacturing companies. Who knows?
130
posted on
05/05/2009 1:07:21 PM PDT
by
OneVike
(Just a Christian waiting to go home)
To: Squawk 8888
That’s just the one I found online.
131
posted on
05/05/2009 1:07:43 PM PDT
by
Straight Vermonter
(Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
To: InterceptPoint
And the idea of secession really isn't going anywhere. As a practical matter, Montana would have to assume their share of the current $11 trillion Federal debt, an impossible burden on any government entity that lacks the power to print their own money.The Montana Legislature recently ended it's 90-day session about $10 billion in the hole.
132
posted on
05/05/2009 1:08:08 PM PDT
by
BigSkyFreeper
(There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity)
To: Straight Vermonter
Hmmm. So those who accept Wickard have 70 years of precedent on their side. I guess we’ll just have to make due with the other 170.
133
posted on
05/05/2009 1:09:10 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: Still Thinking
You may be correct. As I wrote to someone else Clarence Thomas, in his dissent to Gonzales v. Raich, seems willing to dramatically limit the congress’ power to use the commerce clause.
134
posted on
05/05/2009 1:10:10 PM PDT
by
Straight Vermonter
(Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
To: Straight Vermonter
I’ve always secretly wanted to replace everybody from Scalia to Stevens with eight Thomas clones.
135
posted on
05/05/2009 1:11:19 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: Ken H
Pot does not have constitutional protection like the 2nd amendment right to arms.
Then if you read Scalia's decision on the 2nd amendment you could see him siding with Montana on this. Either way this will be worth watching.
136
posted on
05/05/2009 1:12:01 PM PDT
by
OneVike
(Just a Christian waiting to go home)
To: InterceptPoint
Montana would have to assume their share of the current $11 trillion Federal debt
I don't see why. I'd suggest they gorge themselves on whatever they can grab from this "stimulus" boondoggle, and then bail out without paying the check.
...an impossible burden on any government entity that lacks the power to print their own money.
Any sovereign nation (that's part of the point of secession) can coin its own money.
137
posted on
05/05/2009 1:12:25 PM PDT
by
LearsFool
("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
To: cizinec
To: ScottinVA
I hope we get rolling before I’m too old for the fight.
139
posted on
05/05/2009 1:13:59 PM PDT
by
humblegunner
(Where my PIE at, fool?)
To: Still Thinking
You and me both.
It’s just because we are racist conservatives though..oh wait...
140
posted on
05/05/2009 1:16:21 PM PDT
by
Straight Vermonter
(Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 281-296 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson