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

To: Amerigomag
It would be refresehing to se a state break the 14th Amendment cycle: refuse to take the federal money and the federal rules.

Indeed it would, dispite the fact that the 14th has little to do with that cycle. -- The unconstitutional applications of the commerce clause are the 'evil' here, not the 14th.

Today we simply assume that if federal monies (and the attached strings that go with it) are available then it's simply the law.
This is the legacy of the 14th Amendment.

That is propoganda, put out by the states 'rights' people.

Actually, the 14th may save our 2nd amendment rights from the big government 'regulations' crowd, that claims a state & federal ability to write virtually any gun law on the 'well regulated' clause of the 2nd.

'Emerson' has refuted this view & the USSC may very well confirm it by 'incorporating', as per the 14th.

Read the Ashcroft 'decision' threads for the real truth.

33 posted on 05/13/2002 9:12:33 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
Please go away. :)
46 posted on 05/14/2002 11:33:49 AM PDT by H.Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

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