We must restore constitutional government

[Rigby5]

There was a 1907 supreme court case Wilson v. Shaw with roots from the commerce clause.

That's great. Doesn't change a thing. The U.S. Supreme Court has absolutely no power to alter the U.S. Constitution and "Wilson vs. Shaw" isn't a clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Next?

The supreme court interprets the constitution, and they said that the commerce clause allows congress to construct federal highways.

The result was the 1916 Federal Road Aid Act.

But the commerce clause should never be interpreted as allowing federal jurisdiction to supersede state jurisdiction on matters clearly to be up to state control.
For example, while you can build federal interstate highways, the regulations and enforcement of them must always remain with the states.
Which is why the 55 mph speed limit was only a suggestion, and could not be universal. So states like Nevada ignored the 55 mph standard on the interstates, and allow 75 mph.

The commerce clause says regulation of commerce among the several states.

The meaning of "regulation" means to keep regular, or in other words, to prevent one state from blocking or interfering with commerce from other states.
That does not mean to supersede jurisdiction, but to prevent one state from abusing the rights of those from other states.
So it is not giving the federal government authority, but allowing the federal government to help facilitate the inherent rights of individuals.
As the inherent rights of individuals is actually the ONLY legal source of any government authority at all in a democratic republic.

This federal intrusion came about through things like when states started enacting prohibition laws.
They failed because alcohol simple was brought in from other states, so the claim was made that it had to be done federally.
But the claim was totally false, and the reality is that NO state should have made any prohibition laws at all, because all nanny laws like that are inherently illegal.
Making them federal did not help, but just made them all even worse.

Very few things should ever be federal, and only things states can not do.
The feds are always going to be more distant, detached, unresponsive, unsympathetic, expensive, corrupt, abusive, hard to appeal, etc.

 

[Kondor3]

...Furthermore, each state is an independent state, united in 18 specific issues only. You would know that if you hadn't chosen to be willfully ignorant (as is the way with the left). Trying studying some original documents some time. Try reading about the founders. Good grief. It's painful having to educate you a dozen times per day.

You tell 'em, Sparky.

If you really and truly believe that each state is independent in actual practice, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn that you need to take look at...

The relationship between the Union and its constituent States was settled in 1865...

Consequently, a forcible attack upon on State is an attack upon all fifty States...

But we can forgive impractical, blinkered Binary Choices types such as yourself for not understanding the subtleties and practicalities at work here... that's above your pay-grade.

Having trouble selling your Confederation of States preliminaries to folks outside your own political sphere, are ya?

The Federal model is extant and will remain so, at the pleasure and will of The People.

Mess with that, forcibly, and the rest of us are gonna buy tickets and popcorn while the Federales burn your ass down to the ground.

-------------

Time to let this thread die-out...

Whether or not states can legally secede is not that important.
But what is important is that the federal government has exceeded its mandate.
Things like the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, gun control, etc., are simply illegal abuses by the federal government.
It is strictly against the 9th and 10th amendments, which give states, municipalities, and individuals jurisdiction whenever the federal government is not specifically authorized to have jurisdiction.

Fine. Now all you have to do is to convince the rest of modern-day America, most of whose citizens are content with the Federal-State relationship, and Federal dominance.

 

[Kondor3]

There was a 1907 supreme court case Wilson v. Shaw with roots from the commerce clause.

That's great. Doesn't change a thing. The U.S. Supreme Court has absolutely no power to alter the U.S. Constitution and "Wilson vs. Shaw" isn't a clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Next?

The supreme court interprets the constitution, and they said that the commerce clause allows congress to construct federal highways.

The result was the 1916 Federal Road Aid Act.

But the commerce clause should never be interpreted as allowing federal jurisdiction to supersede state jurisdiction on matters clearly to be up to state control.
For example, while you can build federal interstate highways, the regulations and enforcement of them must always remain with the states.
Which is why the 55 mph speed limit was only a suggestion, and could not be universal. So states like Nevada ignored the 55 mph standard on the interstates, and allow 75 mph.

The commerce clause says regulation of commerce among the several states.

The meaning of "regulation" means to keep regular, or in other words, to prevent one state from blocking or interfering with commerce from other states.
That does not mean to supersede jurisdiction, but to prevent one state from abusing the rights of those from other states.
So it is not giving the federal government authority, but allowing the federal government to help facilitate the inherent rights of individuals.
As the inherent rights of individuals is actually the ONLY legal source of any government authority at all in a democratic republic.

This federal intrusion came about through things like when states started enacting prohibition laws.
They failed because alcohol simple was brought in from other states, so the claim was made that it had to be done federally.
But the claim was totally false, and the reality is that NO state should have made any prohibition laws at all, because all nanny laws like that are inherently illegal.
Making them federal did not help, but just made them all even worse.

Very few things should ever be federal, and only things states can not do.
The feds are always going to be more distant, detached, unresponsive, unsympathetic, expensive, corrupt, abusive, hard to appeal, etc.

You were born about 250 years too late for that Minimalist approach...

 

[Rigby5]

...Furthermore, each state is an independent state, united in 18 specific issues only. You would know that if you hadn't chosen to be willfully ignorant (as is the way with the left). Trying studying some original documents some time. Try reading about the founders. Good grief. It's painful having to educate you a dozen times per day.

You tell 'em, Sparky.

If you really and truly believe that each state is independent in actual practice, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn that you need to take look at...

The relationship between the Union and its constituent States was settled in 1865...

Consequently, a forcible attack upon on State is an attack upon all fifty States...

But we can forgive impractical, blinkered Binary Choices types such as yourself for not understanding the subtleties and practicalities at work here... that's above your pay-grade.

Having trouble selling your Confederation of States preliminaries to folks outside your own political sphere, are ya?

The Federal model is extant and will remain so, at the pleasure and will of The People.

Mess with that, forcibly, and the rest of us are gonna buy tickets and popcorn while the Federales burn your ass down to the ground.

-------------

Time to let this thread die-out...

Whether or not states can legally secede is not that important.
But what is important is that the federal government has exceeded its mandate.
Things like the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, gun control, etc., are simply illegal abuses by the federal government.
It is strictly against the 9th and 10th amendments, which give states, municipalities, and individuals jurisdiction whenever the federal government is not specifically authorized to have jurisdiction.

Fine. Now all you have to do is to convince the rest of modern-day America, most of whose citizens are content with the Federal-State relationship, and Federal dominance.

Not really.
In a democratic republic, all you need to convince is the judiciary.
Nor is everybody content with federal buses of the Constitution.
Blacks for example, are pissed off that almost 30% of Blacks are not allowed to vote due to drug convictions.
About 100 million gun owners are pissed off about out of control gun control.
About half the states are in a show down with the federal government over the states legalizing pot.
Face the facts, almost any time you end up in federal court when it could have been state or local, it is wrong.
It is very hard, expensive, and distant to deal with defending yourself from federal charges.
And if sentences, most states do not have federal prisons, so then visitation rights are also violated.

 

[Rigby5]

That's great. Doesn't change a thing. The U.S. Supreme Court has absolutely no power to alter the U.S. Constitution and "Wilson vs. Shaw" isn't a clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Next?

The supreme court interprets the constitution, and they said that the commerce clause allows congress to construct federal highways.

The result was the 1916 Federal Road Aid Act.

But the commerce clause should never be interpreted as allowing federal jurisdiction to supersede state jurisdiction on matters clearly to be up to state control.
For example, while you can build federal interstate highways, the regulations and enforcement of them must always remain with the states.
Which is why the 55 mph speed limit was only a suggestion, and could not be universal. So states like Nevada ignored the 55 mph standard on the interstates, and allow 75 mph.

The commerce clause says regulation of commerce among the several states.

The meaning of "regulation" means to keep regular, or in other words, to prevent one state from blocking or interfering with commerce from other states.
That does not mean to supersede jurisdiction, but to prevent one state from abusing the rights of those from other states.
So it is not giving the federal government authority, but allowing the federal government to help facilitate the inherent rights of individuals.
As the inherent rights of individuals is actually the ONLY legal source of any government authority at all in a democratic republic.

This federal intrusion came about through things like when states started enacting prohibition laws.
They failed because alcohol simple was brought in from other states, so the claim was made that it had to be done federally.
But the claim was totally false, and the reality is that NO state should have made any prohibition laws at all, because all nanny laws like that are inherently illegal.
Making them federal did not help, but just made them all even worse.

Very few things should ever be federal, and only things states can not do.
The feds are always going to be more distant, detached, unresponsive, unsympathetic, expensive, corrupt, abusive, hard to appeal, etc.

You were born about 250 years too late for that Minimalist approach...

Wrong.
These federal abuses did not occur until about only 100 years ago.
And it was not so apparent why it so wrong at first.
They quickly repealed prohibition as a huge mistake.
But no one has yet repealed the federal war on drugs, so it is time to ratchet it up a notch, and start doing something about it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

...Furthermore, each state is an independent state, united in 18 specific issues only. You would know that if you hadn't chosen to be willfully ignorant (as is the way with the left). Trying studying some original documents some time. Try reading about the founders. Good grief. It's painful having to educate you a dozen times per day.

You tell 'em, Sparky.

If you really and truly believe that each state is independent in actual practice, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn that you need to take look at...

The relationship between the Union and its constituent States was settled in 1865...

Consequently, a forcible attack upon on State is an attack upon all fifty States...

But we can forgive impractical, blinkered Binary Choices types such as yourself for not understanding the subtleties and practicalities at work here... that's above your pay-grade.

Having trouble selling your Confederation of States preliminaries to folks outside your own political sphere, are ya?

The Federal model is extant and will remain so, at the pleasure and will of The People.

Mess with that, forcibly, and the rest of us are gonna buy tickets and popcorn while the Federales burn your ass down to the ground.

-------------

Time to let this thread die-out...

Whether or not states can legally secede is not that important.
But what is important is that the federal government has exceeded its mandate.
Things like the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, gun control, etc., are simply illegal abuses by the federal government.
It is strictly against the 9th and 10th amendments, which give states, municipalities, and individuals jurisdiction whenever the federal government is not specifically authorized to have jurisdiction.

Fine. Now all you have to do is to convince the rest of modern-day America, most of whose citizens are content with the Federal-State relationship, and Federal dominance.

It seems California is not, just as an example.

 

[Kondor3]

...It seems California is not, just as an example.

Well, yeah, the People's Socialist Democratic Republic of Kalipornia is rather 'special', isn't it? The Land of Fruits and Nuts.

 

[Rigby5]

...Furthermore, each state is an independent state, united in 18 specific issues only. You would know that if you hadn't chosen to be willfully ignorant (as is the way with the left). Trying studying some original documents some time. Try reading about the founders. Good grief. It's painful having to educate you a dozen times per day.

You tell 'em, Sparky.

If you really and truly believe that each state is independent in actual practice, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn that you need to take look at...

The relationship between the Union and its constituent States was settled in 1865...

Consequently, a forcible attack upon on State is an attack upon all fifty States...

But we can forgive impractical, blinkered Binary Choices types such as yourself for not understanding the subtleties and practicalities at work here... that's above your pay-grade.

Having trouble selling your Confederation of States preliminaries to folks outside your own political sphere, are ya?

The Federal model is extant and will remain so, at the pleasure and will of The People.

Mess with that, forcibly, and the rest of us are gonna buy tickets and popcorn while the Federales burn your ass down to the ground.

-------------

Time to let this thread die-out...

Whether or not states can legally secede is not that important.
But what is important is that the federal government has exceeded its mandate.
Things like the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, gun control, etc., are simply illegal abuses by the federal government.
It is strictly against the 9th and 10th amendments, which give states, municipalities, and individuals jurisdiction whenever the federal government is not specifically authorized to have jurisdiction.

Fine. Now all you have to do is to convince the rest of modern-day America, most of whose citizens are content with the Federal-State relationship, and Federal dominance.

It seems California is not, just as an example.

Good point.
California wants stricter control on emissions and guns, but more laxity on drugs.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

...Furthermore, each state is an independent state, united in 18 specific issues only. You would know that if you hadn't chosen to be willfully ignorant (as is the way with the left). Trying studying some original documents some time. Try reading about the founders. Good grief. It's painful having to educate you a dozen times per day.

You tell 'em, Sparky.

If you really and truly believe that each state is independent in actual practice, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn that you need to take look at...

The relationship between the Union and its constituent States was settled in 1865...

Consequently, a forcible attack upon on State is an attack upon all fifty States...

But we can forgive impractical, blinkered Binary Choices types such as yourself for not understanding the subtleties and practicalities at work here... that's above your pay-grade.

Having trouble selling your Confederation of States preliminaries to folks outside your own political sphere, are ya?

The Federal model is extant and will remain so, at the pleasure and will of The People.

Mess with that, forcibly, and the rest of us are gonna buy tickets and popcorn while the Federales burn your ass down to the ground.

-------------

Time to let this thread die-out...

Whether or not states can legally secede is not that important.
But what is important is that the federal government has exceeded its mandate.
Things like the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, gun control, etc., are simply illegal abuses by the federal government.
It is strictly against the 9th and 10th amendments, which give states, municipalities, and individuals jurisdiction whenever the federal government is not specifically authorized to have jurisdiction.

Fine. Now all you have to do is to convince the rest of modern-day America, most of whose citizens are content with the Federal-State relationship, and Federal dominance.

It seems California is not, just as an example.

Good point.
California wants stricter control on emissions and guns, but more laxity on drugs.

California is a Sanctuary state, clearly interfering with federal immigration law.

 

[Rigby5]

You tell 'em, Sparky.

If you really and truly believe that each state is independent in actual practice, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn that you need to take look at...

The relationship between the Union and its constituent States was settled in 1865...

Consequently, a forcible attack upon on State is an attack upon all fifty States...

But we can forgive impractical, blinkered Binary Choices types such as yourself for not understanding the subtleties and practicalities at work here... that's above your pay-grade.

Having trouble selling your Confederation of States preliminaries to folks outside your own political sphere, are ya?

The Federal model is extant and will remain so, at the pleasure and will of The People.

Mess with that, forcibly, and the rest of us are gonna buy tickets and popcorn while the Federales burn your ass down to the ground.

-------------

Time to let this thread die-out...

Whether or not states can legally secede is not that important.
But what is important is that the federal government has exceeded its mandate.
Things like the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, gun control, etc., are simply illegal abuses by the federal government.
It is strictly against the 9th and 10th amendments, which give states, municipalities, and individuals jurisdiction whenever the federal government is not specifically authorized to have jurisdiction.

Fine. Now all you have to do is to convince the rest of modern-day America, most of whose citizens are content with the Federal-State relationship, and Federal dominance.

It seems California is not, just as an example.

Good point.
California wants stricter control on emissions and guns, but more laxity on drugs.

California is a Sanctuary state, clearly interfering with federal immigration law.

Sanctuary states interfere with nothing.
No state can legally enforce federal law.
It is illegal for any state to try to enforce federal law.
The rights of individuals require states to treat all people as if citizens.

 

[danielpalos]

Whether or not states can legally secede is not that important.
But what is important is that the federal government has exceeded its mandate.
Things like the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, gun control, etc., are simply illegal abuses by the federal government.
It is strictly against the 9th and 10th amendments, which give states, municipalities, and individuals jurisdiction whenever the federal government is not specifically authorized to have jurisdiction.

Fine. Now all you have to do is to convince the rest of modern-day America, most of whose citizens are content with the Federal-State relationship, and Federal dominance.

It seems California is not, just as an example.

Good point.
California wants stricter control on emissions and guns, but more laxity on drugs.

California is a Sanctuary state, clearly interfering with federal immigration law.

Sanctuary states interfere with nothing.
No state can legally enforce federal law.
It is illegal for any state to try to enforce federal law.
The rights of individuals require states to treat all people as if citizens.

the right wing only alleges to believe in natural rights in abortion threads.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Whether or not states can legally secede is not that important.
But what is important is that the federal government has exceeded its mandate.
Things like the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, gun control, etc., are simply illegal abuses by the federal government.
It is strictly against the 9th and 10th amendments, which give states, municipalities, and individuals jurisdiction whenever the federal government is not specifically authorized to have jurisdiction.

Fine. Now all you have to do is to convince the rest of modern-day America, most of whose citizens are content with the Federal-State relationship, and Federal dominance.

It seems California is not, just as an example.

Good point.
California wants stricter control on emissions and guns, but more laxity on drugs.

California is a Sanctuary state, clearly interfering with federal immigration law.

Sanctuary states interfere with nothing.
No state can legally enforce federal law.
It is illegal for any state to try to enforce federal law.
The rights of individuals require states to treat all people as if citizens.

Wow, are you fucked in the head.

Stares can enforce federal law, or not. Their choice. What they cannot do is interfere with the enforcement of federal law.

 

[danielpalos]

Fine. Now all you have to do is to convince the rest of modern-day America, most of whose citizens are content with the Federal-State relationship, and Federal dominance.

It seems California is not, just as an example.

Good point.
California wants stricter control on emissions and guns, but more laxity on drugs.

California is a Sanctuary state, clearly interfering with federal immigration law.

Sanctuary states interfere with nothing.
No state can legally enforce federal law.
It is illegal for any state to try to enforce federal law.
The rights of individuals require states to treat all people as if citizens.

Wow, are you fucked in the head.

Stares can enforce federal law, or not. Their choice. What they cannot do is interfere with the enforcement of federal law.

They enforce State laws from unitary State governments which cover most everything but specific federal powers.

 

[Rigby5]

Fine. Now all you have to do is to convince the rest of modern-day America, most of whose citizens are content with the Federal-State relationship, and Federal dominance.

It seems California is not, just as an example.

Good point.
California wants stricter control on emissions and guns, but more laxity on drugs.

California is a Sanctuary state, clearly interfering with federal immigration law.

Sanctuary states interfere with nothing.
No state can legally enforce federal law.
It is illegal for any state to try to enforce federal law.
The rights of individuals require states to treat all people as if citizens.

Wow, are you fucked in the head.

Stares can enforce federal law, or not. Their choice. What they cannot do is interfere with the enforcement of federal law.

No, states can not legally enforce federal law, any more than one state can enforce the law of another state.
They have no standing.
Governments are NOT a source of any legal authority.
They derive their authority only by borrowing from the individuals they are protecting.
The Constitution divided jurisdiction between federal and all other.
While it does give the federal government jurisdiction over the borders, that precludes states jurisdiction, and it would be like the federal government demanding that all commercial businesses enforce federal immigration laws. They can't do it. Only federal agents are authorized to enforce federal law. No one else would even necessarily know what federal law actually states. Local and state police have very limited jurisdiction, and that definitely does NOT include immigration law.
I agree they can not interfere with federal law enforcement, but I have never heard of a case where they did that.

 

[P@triot]

Whether or not states can legally secede is not that important. But what is important is that the federal government has exceeded its mandate. Things like the War on Drugs, 3 Strikes, gun control, etc., are simply illegal abuses by the federal government. It is strictly against the 9th and 10th amendments, which give states, municipalities, and individuals jurisdiction whenever the federal government is not specifically authorized to have jurisdiction.

Fine. Now all you have to do is to convince the rest of modern-day America, most of whose citizens are content with the Federal-State relationship, and Federal dominance.

Actually, snowflake, no such thing is required. What Rigby5 stated is law (constitutional law). So the onus is on ignorant people like you to “convince the rest of modern-day America” that federal power should be expanded. Otherwise, your engaging in unconstitutional government (which is illegal).

 

[P@triot]

You were born about 250 years too late for that Minimalist approach...

Unfortunately for you, you were born in the wrong country for your communist approach...

 

[P@triot]

 

[P@triot]

 

[Rigby5]

Fine. Now all you have to do is to convince the rest of modern-day America, most of whose citizens are content with the Federal-State relationship, and Federal dominance.

It seems California is not, just as an example.

Good point.
California wants stricter control on emissions and guns, but more laxity on drugs.

California is a Sanctuary state, clearly interfering with federal immigration law.

Sanctuary states interfere with nothing.
No state can legally enforce federal law.
It is illegal for any state to try to enforce federal law.
The rights of individuals require states to treat all people as if citizens.

Wow, are you fucked in the head.

Stares can enforce federal law, or not. Their choice. What they cannot do is interfere with the enforcement of federal law.

No, states can only enforce laws they have jurisdiction over and create.
Federal law requires interpretation, regulations, guidelines, legal advice, etc. that states do not have and are forbidden to try to have.
It is illegal for any state or local cop to even ask for ID or citizenship, because that is prejudicial.

 

[P@triot]

The NRA is just a group of U.S. citizens working to ensure the U.S. Constitution is properly upheld. So ask yourself why the left is so committed to the destruction of the NRA.

(Hint: fascists hate the U.S. Constitution)

Democratic congresswoman screams 'the NRA has got to go!' during town hall — at a gun range. It probably wasn't the best place to say that.