fantastic_jackie (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fantastic_jackie) wrote2009-05-08 08:19 pm
fantastic_jackie) wrote2009-05-08 08:19 pm
Entry tags:
States to Feds: "We demand our rights back!"
The excitement is palpable. I can barely contain my joy! Even if the current movements fail, in the long run, we've already scored a victory with just the movements' existences.
Unless you watch Fox, you're not gonna know about this stuff, but I swear to you, it's gonna get big.
Three major things are happening right now:
1) The Call for a Constitutional Convention
2) States' Gun Rights: The fight for States' Rights - Liberty or Secession
3) Texas' Stance on the Constitution
1) Across the nation, people are beginning to pick up on a movement to call a Constitutional Convention for the express purpose of abolishing the 16th Amendment. - That's the Income Tax. - The reason is to starve Washington so they can't spend anymore.
For those of y'all outside of the US and not familiar with our governmental ins and outs in the US, suffice it to say that this is BIG. If it happens. If 2/3rds of the States call for the CC, then it MUST take place.
Even if it's a failure in terms of either not enough states participating or, in the case that it is called, the motion to abolish it falling through, it will still be a victory for us. Reason: If Washington fears that we'll take their candy away, they may start cutting back on their own.
This is the longest shot of the three here, but keep your eyes peeled for it.
---------------
The next two are the responses of State legislatures to the Stimulus Package and the TEA Parties!
If y'all remember about the Stimulus Package, the democrats included a provision within the legislation that superceded the State Governors' powers. It stated that if the governor rejected the funding or parts of the funding, the state legislatures had to go around him/her and accept it anyway. This was, obviously, a huge finger to States' Rights. So the legislatures across the nation are fighting back as detailed below...
2) Yesterday, the Governor of Montana - a Democrat, by the way - signed into law a piece of legislation that does the following:
Any firearm that is manufactured in the state of Montana, that remains within the state and is fired with ammunition made within the state is NOT subject to federal regulation, restriction, or legislation. It is subject to STATE regulation, restriction, or legislation, and the federal government has NO PLACE regulating it.
Texas has the exact same piece of legislation in the works right now, and Utah is currently looking over the law to see if they can strengthen it any further before presenting it in their legislature.
In Montana, this goes into effect in October. It will be kicked up to the court system immediately thereafter. The specific purpose is to get it to the Supreme Court. And the Montana governor has gone as far as to say that if the Federal Government tries to take this away from the people of Montana, they will secede.
Seems strange, huh? Over gun regulation? What's this really about?
In school, y'all should have learned about some important court cases. One that you may remember would involve a farmer growing wheat; the precident for interstate commerce as it is used today. - Interstate Commerce is regulated by Congress per the Constitution. Intrastate Commerce is supposed to be regulated by the States: See 10th Amendment. - The case is better known as Wickard vs Filburn. Here's the basic gist that should trigger your memory:
In July of 1940, Mr. Filburn was told of his allotment permitting him to grow a limited amount of wheat during the 1941 season. Mr. Wickard grew 239 bushels, which was more than this allotted amount of wheat permitted, and he was charged with growing too much wheat by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the authority of its Secretary Wickard.
None of the wheat was sold in interstate commerce. In fact, all the wheat was fed to Filburn's cattle on his own property. Thus, the wheat grown by Filburn never actually left his farm and was not sold in intra-state, much less interstate commerce.
The fact that Farmer Filburn never sold any of the wheat, but merely fed it to his cattle, meant that this was not really commerce, either. Filburn argued that Congress was attempting to regulate merely the "consumption" of wheat -- not commerce (marketing) of wheat. Thus, Filburn argued, the regulation should fail both because (a) the activity was not interstate, and (b) it was not commerce.
Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as constitutionally authorized under the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court's reasoning was that the growing of wheat that never entered commerce of any kind, and did not enter interstate commerce, nevertheless potentially could have an effect upon interstate commerce. That is, had Farmer Filburn not grown his own wheat to feed his cattle, he would have bought wheat, which might have been intra-state commerce purely within Ohio, but could possibly have traveled in inter-state commerce.
Source
What does this have anything to do with anything? Well, think about it. This is widely recognized as a poor decision by the Supreme Court by just about everyone. And yet, this very decision has been the basis by which the Federal Government has regulated and overseen many things that we have today. They say, "Interstate Commerce" as defined in this court case and the power is granted.
The purpose of this going to the courts is to overturn this ruling! And if that happens, do you know what happens then??
Oh, I'm so giddy! It's the return of States' Rights!
Something you might understand immediately is if I say EPA. - The Environmental Protection Agency. - If this is overturned, the EPA loses a BUTTLOAD of power over the citizens!! Something else you might easily recognize is the minimum wage! That power is relinquished to the STATES where it belongs! Oh, HAPPY DAY! :D
---------------
But of course, Texas always has to take it a step further... ;)
3) In conjunciton with the above gun legislation, Texas has another one pending that basically says the following:
Texas is a soveriegn state in the US. It is subject to its own constitution as well as the Constitution of the United States. If the federal government, by means of legislation, policy, or anything else, violates the US Constitution, Texas will NOT adhere to it.
How absolutely AWESOME is that?! XDDD
I LOVE my state!
And you'd better believe the libs will have Texas in the courts if that passes!
---------------
"When people fear their government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
I don't quite know where we are in terms of President Jefferson's scale here, but I can say that if things continue to go this way, with the continuing TEA Parties and mounting pressure from the States - this is spreading - there's going to be a shift in the US.
They are punch drunk with power on Capitol Hill, and people have finally had enough. This is only the beginning! You can COUNT on at least #2 going to the Supreme Court.
Could we lose the battle? Yes, I suppose we could. But then, I don't think Americans will sit by and allow all of our rights to be dictated by the beaurocrats in Washington DC, to abdicate all things intra and inter state to the the federal government.
If this is overturned, so many threads of the Federal government are cut off in an instant! So many things that the Progressive Movement has shoved down our throats on the federal level. - And there is a difference between Liberals, modern day "Progressives," and the Progressive Movement. The PM has infiltrated the Republican Party, as well.
We are witnessing history, guys! Don't you want to be a part of it? :D
Unless you watch Fox, you're not gonna know about this stuff, but I swear to you, it's gonna get big.
Three major things are happening right now:
1) The Call for a Constitutional Convention
2) States' Gun Rights: The fight for States' Rights - Liberty or Secession
3) Texas' Stance on the Constitution
1) Across the nation, people are beginning to pick up on a movement to call a Constitutional Convention for the express purpose of abolishing the 16th Amendment. - That's the Income Tax. - The reason is to starve Washington so they can't spend anymore.
For those of y'all outside of the US and not familiar with our governmental ins and outs in the US, suffice it to say that this is BIG. If it happens. If 2/3rds of the States call for the CC, then it MUST take place.
Even if it's a failure in terms of either not enough states participating or, in the case that it is called, the motion to abolish it falling through, it will still be a victory for us. Reason: If Washington fears that we'll take their candy away, they may start cutting back on their own.
This is the longest shot of the three here, but keep your eyes peeled for it.
---------------
The next two are the responses of State legislatures to the Stimulus Package and the TEA Parties!
If y'all remember about the Stimulus Package, the democrats included a provision within the legislation that superceded the State Governors' powers. It stated that if the governor rejected the funding or parts of the funding, the state legislatures had to go around him/her and accept it anyway. This was, obviously, a huge finger to States' Rights. So the legislatures across the nation are fighting back as detailed below...
2) Yesterday, the Governor of Montana - a Democrat, by the way - signed into law a piece of legislation that does the following:
Any firearm that is manufactured in the state of Montana, that remains within the state and is fired with ammunition made within the state is NOT subject to federal regulation, restriction, or legislation. It is subject to STATE regulation, restriction, or legislation, and the federal government has NO PLACE regulating it.
Texas has the exact same piece of legislation in the works right now, and Utah is currently looking over the law to see if they can strengthen it any further before presenting it in their legislature.
In Montana, this goes into effect in October. It will be kicked up to the court system immediately thereafter. The specific purpose is to get it to the Supreme Court. And the Montana governor has gone as far as to say that if the Federal Government tries to take this away from the people of Montana, they will secede.
Seems strange, huh? Over gun regulation? What's this really about?
In school, y'all should have learned about some important court cases. One that you may remember would involve a farmer growing wheat; the precident for interstate commerce as it is used today. - Interstate Commerce is regulated by Congress per the Constitution. Intrastate Commerce is supposed to be regulated by the States: See 10th Amendment. - The case is better known as Wickard vs Filburn. Here's the basic gist that should trigger your memory:
In July of 1940, Mr. Filburn was told of his allotment permitting him to grow a limited amount of wheat during the 1941 season. Mr. Wickard grew 239 bushels, which was more than this allotted amount of wheat permitted, and he was charged with growing too much wheat by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the authority of its Secretary Wickard.
None of the wheat was sold in interstate commerce. In fact, all the wheat was fed to Filburn's cattle on his own property. Thus, the wheat grown by Filburn never actually left his farm and was not sold in intra-state, much less interstate commerce.
The fact that Farmer Filburn never sold any of the wheat, but merely fed it to his cattle, meant that this was not really commerce, either. Filburn argued that Congress was attempting to regulate merely the "consumption" of wheat -- not commerce (marketing) of wheat. Thus, Filburn argued, the regulation should fail both because (a) the activity was not interstate, and (b) it was not commerce.
Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as constitutionally authorized under the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court's reasoning was that the growing of wheat that never entered commerce of any kind, and did not enter interstate commerce, nevertheless potentially could have an effect upon interstate commerce. That is, had Farmer Filburn not grown his own wheat to feed his cattle, he would have bought wheat, which might have been intra-state commerce purely within Ohio, but could possibly have traveled in inter-state commerce.
Source
What does this have anything to do with anything? Well, think about it. This is widely recognized as a poor decision by the Supreme Court by just about everyone. And yet, this very decision has been the basis by which the Federal Government has regulated and overseen many things that we have today. They say, "Interstate Commerce" as defined in this court case and the power is granted.
The purpose of this going to the courts is to overturn this ruling! And if that happens, do you know what happens then??
Oh, I'm so giddy! It's the return of States' Rights!
Something you might understand immediately is if I say EPA. - The Environmental Protection Agency. - If this is overturned, the EPA loses a BUTTLOAD of power over the citizens!! Something else you might easily recognize is the minimum wage! That power is relinquished to the STATES where it belongs! Oh, HAPPY DAY! :D
---------------
But of course, Texas always has to take it a step further... ;)
3) In conjunciton with the above gun legislation, Texas has another one pending that basically says the following:
Texas is a soveriegn state in the US. It is subject to its own constitution as well as the Constitution of the United States. If the federal government, by means of legislation, policy, or anything else, violates the US Constitution, Texas will NOT adhere to it.
How absolutely AWESOME is that?! XDDD
I LOVE my state!
And you'd better believe the libs will have Texas in the courts if that passes!
---------------
"When people fear their government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
I don't quite know where we are in terms of President Jefferson's scale here, but I can say that if things continue to go this way, with the continuing TEA Parties and mounting pressure from the States - this is spreading - there's going to be a shift in the US.
They are punch drunk with power on Capitol Hill, and people have finally had enough. This is only the beginning! You can COUNT on at least #2 going to the Supreme Court.
Could we lose the battle? Yes, I suppose we could. But then, I don't think Americans will sit by and allow all of our rights to be dictated by the beaurocrats in Washington DC, to abdicate all things intra and inter state to the the federal government.
If this is overturned, so many threads of the Federal government are cut off in an instant! So many things that the Progressive Movement has shoved down our throats on the federal level. - And there is a difference between Liberals, modern day "Progressives," and the Progressive Movement. The PM has infiltrated the Republican Party, as well.
We are witnessing history, guys! Don't you want to be a part of it? :D