• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Democratic Montana Gov. Sticking it to Feds

Statesman

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

thorvaldr wrote:
I love this. Did anyone else get a sudden urge to move to Montana?
Click to expand...
I'd wait until it's settled under a SCOTUS ruling before I moved. States are going to have to start refusing federal dollars in addition to this, and that's going to be difficult I'd say, unless the people in that state back it up with their demands.
 
P

Pagan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Gloucester, Virginia, USA
imported post

A free state, looking out for the interest of the people, can it be true? The American spirit of freedom and liberty is alive and well in Montana!
 
N

Notso

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
432
Location
Laveen, Arizona, USA
imported post

This is good, but what was the SCOTUS case where the rancher that grew his own feed for his own cattle, but was forced to pay interstate tax on it because the feednormally 'could have been' shipped interstate? Seems like that shoots down this kind of thinking.
 
M

MuellerBadener

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
98
Location
West Jordan, UT, ,
imported post

Notso wrote:
This is good, but what was the SCOTUS case where the rancher that grew his own feed for his own cattle, but was forced to pay interstate tax on it because the feednormally 'could have been' shipped interstate? Seems like that shoots down this kind of thinking.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that I remember my history prof teaching us about Andrew Jackson telling SCOTUS to get bent & doing as he pleased anyway. If they start giving out more rulings like that one, it may be about time "We the People" start doing the same.
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

This is AWESOME!

SCOTUS is notorious for giving the feds too much power under the commerce clause. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. In the gun in a gun free zone case (can't remember the name of it) the courts decided that the commerce clause at least didn't go that far.

I hope more states follow Montana's lead and tell the Feds to go blank themselves.
 
Flintlock

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

American Rattlesnake wrote:
GJD wrote:
There are a small group of states dedicated to protecting their citizens' rights. New Hampshire, Montana, and Wyoming - any more?
Click to expand...
Idaho and Alaska come immediately to mind.
Click to expand...
As does South Dakota, Utah, and Texas.
 
A

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

Statesman wrote:
thorvaldr wrote:
I love this. Did anyone else get a sudden urge to move to Montana?
Click to expand...
I'd wait until it's settled under a SCOTUS ruling before I moved. States are going to have to start refusing federal dollars in addition to this, and that's going to be difficult I'd say, unless the people in that state back it up with their demands.
Click to expand...
I still got the urge.

In fact, I'm finishing my Associate's Degree soon.
 
Statesman

Statesman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
948
Location
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
imported post

Brass Magnet wrote:
This is AWESOME!

SCOTUS is notorious for giving the feds too much power under the commerce clause. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. In the gun in a gun free zone case (can't remember the name of it) the courts decided that the commerce clause at least didn't go that far.

I hope more states follow Montana's lead and tell the Feds to go blank themselves.
Click to expand...
Glenn Beck said today, that he understood that most of the judges (SCOTUS) are just waiting for a good case to reverse these asinine commerce clause decisions. They've apparently been waiting for a "good" case to come along, and recent state resolutions on local firearm commerce may be the ones they are looking for.
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Statesman wrote:
Glenn Beck said today, that he understood that most of the judges (SCOTUS) are just waiting for a good case to reverse these asinine commerce clause decisions. They've apparently been waiting for a "good" case to come along, and recent state resolutions on local firearm commerce may be the ones they are looking for.
Click to expand...

I hope that's true. I just find it hard to put my trust in the court where both the liberal and conservative justices fail to interpret the law based on the constitution and instead interpret it with agendas. The Heller decision was correct in the end, but they came about it for the wrong reasons.See if you can pick out the idiocy in this statement. In the dissent, Justice Breyer said: "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."(DUH! this is where youneed them most!)In fact, the whole dissent basicallyconfirmed that they want to legislate from the bench. Even the majority worried about the "implications" of their decision, which is not theirs to worry about. There are grounds to impeach almost every justice on that court. All you need to do is read a couple of decisions.

Also dissapointing was that in drawing a parrallel to the English bill of rights; “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” they conluded that"shall not be infringed" meant common sense laws. WTF? The reason our founders put in "shall not be infringed" was because their arms were taken from them whilst they were "protected" by english law. They didn't want it to be up to a law to take them away ever again.

I guess this is where some of my lack of faith comes in.
 
R

RockyMtnScotsman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
461
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

MuellerBadener wrote:
Flintlock wrote:
American Rattlesnake wrote:
GJD wrote:
There are a small group of states dedicated to protecting their citizens' rights. New Hampshire, Montana, and Wyoming - any more?
Click to expand...
Idaho and Alaska come immediately to mind.
Click to expand...
As does South Dakota, Utah, and Texas.
Click to expand...
Almost sounds like the Rocky Mountain Republic.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I don't have high hopes of that list including Colorado anytime soon :(
 
M

MuellerBadener

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
98
Location
West Jordan, UT, ,
imported post

RockyMtnScotsman wrote:
MuellerBadener wrote:
Flintlock wrote:
American Rattlesnake wrote:
GJD wrote:
There are a small group of states dedicated to protecting their citizens' rights. New Hampshire, Montana, and Wyoming - any more?
Click to expand...
Idaho and Alaska come immediately to mind.
Click to expand...
As does South Dakota, Utah, and Texas.
Click to expand...
Almost sounds like the Rocky Mountain Republic.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I don't have high hopes of that list including Colorado anytime soon :(
Click to expand...
Then we'll just have to annex them!:lol: Manitoba too!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top