Just undo the Commerce Clause?

imported post

If the Supreme Court follows the patch of supreme ignorance and sides with the federal government when Montana brings this whole thing to court based on their new law, there is a path we could persue here that most people overlook...

There are two ways to ammend the constitution: Congress starts the process and the states vote on the proposal...

Or...

The states gather together and call a constitutional convention and simply bypass Congress altogether and then vote on the proposal...

States are starting to turn away from the Feds one by one, and if we can get enough, which is not such a long shot anymore, we can start the amending process and simply add an amendment to the constitution that rewrites the commerce clause and severely restrict the Feds ability to do anything.

imported post

The problem there is if the anti-gun folks get involved. They may just have the voting power to get things swung their way.

imported post

Yep the problem as I understand it is the states can't call a constitutional convention just to address the commerce clause. The entire constitution would effectively be on the table for rewrite. I got a chill just thinking about it.

imported post

Exactly. Imagine going to try to get the Commerce clause removed only to have the 2nd completely pulled.

imported post

forever_frost wrote:

Exactly.  Imagine going to try to get the Commerce clause removed only to have the 2nd completely pulled.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. Scalia's brief says that it's a right pre-existing the Constitution itself and gives several pages proving it.
We could take an exacto-knife to the 2nd amendment and still have all the rights we enjoy. We only lose it if we stop fighting.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild,[1] and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

imported post

Be careful what you wish for becauseyou may just get it. Icould see a whole big can of worms with this that I doubt that most of us would be happy with.

imported post

You don't want a constitutional convention... There are no restrictions as to what they may talk about. If each state rep sent people who were anti-gun, arms rights would be screwed.

imported post

All we need is for each state to recognize that the feds have no legal authority over weapons and accessories made in that state as long as they don't affect interstate commerce ie being sold ortraded across state lines, no need for a constitutional rewrite. What we need is already there, we just need our reps to grow some balls or boobs depending on the gender, and put the fed back in it's place.

imported post

Pagan wrote:

All we need is for each state to recognize that the feds have no legal authority over weapons and accessories made in that state as long as they don't affect interstate commerce ie being sold ortraded across state lines, no need for a constitutional rewrite. What we need is already there, we just need our reps to grow some balls or boobs depending on the gender, and put the fed back in it's place.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately state legislatures who are male in California an New Jersey happen to shrink down there and grow boobs so they can be the slut for lobby groups.

imported post

All they have to do is Apply the correct meaning...

The meaning of the word regulate was "To make regular" as in make sure it occurs. not to regulate as in control or manipulate.

Its the same word used in the 2nd and for the same purpose... to make sure that the militia HAS guns...

Put that in your pipe and smoke on it a while.

imported post

The states should all grow a pair and TELL the Fed goons to piss off on many things in many areas. Arms, Interstate Commerce, Medicine, Education, Energy, Environment, Industry... or any other legitimate private enterprise. The only reason they get away with what they do is because the apathetic sheep don't know any better. The Feds are so used to dictating to the states it's become the norm. NO is a really short 'n simple word. What are they gonna do... send in the troops and occupy such states? That would trigger revolution inna nano-second.

imported post

Everything everone has said here is true to an extent, and I think Reb's idea is the best of the bunch. Unfortunately we ourselves are engaged in a mighty struggle to avoid being corralled with the sheeple. This "Universal Health Care" baloney is more than just an attempt to take over the medical industry and socialize 14% of the economy. It is an attempt to make everyone as totally dependent on the Federal government as possible, and to provide an 8-lane superhighway for Federal regulation of the most intimate aspects of individual personal life. Since for instance what you eat affects your health, the government could concievably issue red-meat ration cards based on whether or not some bureaucrat deemed eating red meat was or was not a risk to your health since, of course, government money would pay for your care. I can see "risk permits" being needed for golf rock climbing, etc; with fees determined by how much risk is entailed.

Some of the people I talk to about this stuff give an answer that is not far short of "Baaaaaaaaaah! Baaaaahhh!". I ran into a woman who advocates the "microstamping" fallacy. Even after I explained why it would not work and might even be counter-productive, she said, "well, if nobody can afford it then nobody will shoot it". Baaaaaaaahhhh.:banghead:

imported post

Freeflight wrote:

All they have to do is Apply the correct meaning...

The meaning of the word regulate was "To make regular" as in make sure it occurs. not to regulate as in control or manipulate.

Its the same word used in the 2nd and for the same purpose... to make sure that the militia HAS guns...

Put that in your pipe and smoke on it a while.

Click to expand...

Indeed that is what it means.

The Second Amendment also means that you may not pass any law that interferes with a law-abiding citizen's right to carry and own. Yet look at what has happened on the Federal level in the 90's. Look at what they are trying to do again.

This whole thing hinges on what the state of Montana did. Montana will take this to the Supreme Court, you can bet on that. But what kind of ruling are we looking at?

Remember, that the entire Second Amendment was on the line there and we had a 5-4 decision. We came dangerously close to losing.

I've heard a lot of people saying how it is likely that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the states... but can we really be sure they will? Even if they do rule in favor of the states, they may make additional interpretations on the clause that will generally render even the decision itself ineffective.

The danger itself does not lay in the meaning, but in the interpretation.

imported post

This nation has made the biggest political mistake in it's history. The national government (Federal) is under the control of a band of Chicago style Alinskyite Marxists for whom the Constitution is an annoyance. They will 'shotgun' many things at once to see what sticks... with the end game of distraction, disruption, disestablishment of core values and institutionsleading toultimate irreversable'control'. These are true Facist idealogues. Statists...who believe that the government should controlevery facet of the states existance. To think otherwise is to be in complete denial. The one card we have to play is the 10th Amendment backed by the 2nd.The 2A is tenuous at best.

imported post

markand wrote:

Yep the problem as I understand it is the states can't call a constitutional convention just to address the commerce clause. The entire constitution would effectively be on the table for rewrite. I got a chill just thinking about it.

Click to expand...

The only consolation I see here is that in a Constitutional; Convenetion each state gets 1 vote; Montana = California/ Vermaont = New York Do we out number them state for state?

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

This nation has made the biggest political mistake in it's history. The national government (Federal) is under the control of a band of Chicago style Alinskyite Marxists for whom the Constitution is an annoyance. They will 'shotgun' many things at once to see what sticks... with the end game of distraction, disruption, disestablishment of core values and institutionsleading toultimate irreversable'control'. These are true Facist idealogues. Statists...who believe that the government should controlevery facet of the states existance. To think otherwise is to be in complete denial. The one card we have to play is the 10th Amendment backed by the 2nd.The 2A is tenuous at best.

Click to expand...

If this country keeps getting shoved down the unlit Chicago alley it seems to be going down, you may start to hear more and more talk about succesion, and what's more, those saying it will actually mean it. If our rights will not be upheld by our government orour courts, and the Constitution is just so much paper to those in power, our only recourse may end up being to separate from those who longer support or believe the American ideals and go our own way.

I hope it is not so, but................

imported post

Dispatcher wrote:

States are starting to turn away from the Feds one by one, and if we can get enough, which is not such a long shot anymore, we can start the amending process and simply add an amendment to the constitution that rewrites the commerce clause and severely restrict the Feds ability to do anything.

Click to expand...

Wow. I just don't know how to respond to this forcefully enough. This is a HORRIBLE idea.

What on EARTH makes you think that if a Constitutional Convention was held, that the result would be to RESTRICT the "Feds ability to do anything" [sic] ?!?!

The current below-the-radar push for a new Con-Con is being orchestrated by the very powers which have been INFILTRATING our state and federal governments for generations and are hell-bent on ELIMINATING our rights and setting up the new global dictatorship. We're already FAR down that road.

If these treasonous scum succeed in calling a Con-Con, we can all kiss the ENTIRE Bill of Rights goodbye. This is the WORST thing that can possibly happen.

We do not NEED a Con-Con because there is nothing WRONG with the Constitution in the first place. The problem is that virtually our entire governmental system has been CO-OPTED by the international banking cartels based out of the City of London and the vast majority of our politicians are on the payroll.

What needs to happen is for these TREASONOUS CRIMINALS who are hell-bent on destroying our Republic and denying our citizens of their God-given rights to be PROSECUTED. There is a very good chance that we are going to need another Nuremberg-style tribunal in the not-too-distant future.

I DECLARE THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO VOID ANY PROVISION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS THROUGH A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IS NULL AND VOID, THE COMMISSION OF SUCH ACT ON ITS FACE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATING THAT THOSE RESPONSIBLE ARE ENEMIES OF BOTH THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC AND ITS PEOPLE, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THUS EXCUSED FROM ANY DUTY TO RESPECT THEIR ACTIONS AS HAVING ANY LEGAL EFFECT, REGARDLESS OF ANY OFFICE WHICH THE PERPETRATORS MAY HOLD AT THE TIME.

It is the American people THEMSELVES who hold ultimate sovereignty, and any attempt to relieve them of their Constitutionally-protected Rights constitutes TREASON against the people themselves. Period.

And, on a related matter,

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence..."

United States Supreme Court
Ex Parte Milligan (1866), 71 U.S. 2, 18 L.Ed 281.

Click to expand...

imported post

Didn't Andrew Jackson say, when the Supreme Court ordered him to respect a treaty with the Cherokee, "Mr. Justice Marshall has issued his opinion. Now let us see him enforce it"? Now we have a President who says he will appoint a Justice who "respects our Constitutional traditions", and the lefties and the drived bys are trumpeting this as evidence that the "right wingers" (Which is anybody who disagrees with them one little bit) are "hysterical" and that Obama does, too respect the Constitution. But he did not say that. He said "constitutional traditions" which to him could and probably does mean the tradition of finding loopholes and weasel phrases to make the Constitution say what the Left wants it to at any given time for whatever convenient purpose. To paraphrase Mark Twain, the diff between the Constitution and "Constitutional traditions" is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.

Actually I think Obama's nimbus is wearing distinctly thin. He may have fooled enough of the people enough of the time to get elected. But now he and the Lefties have to squelch dissent to keep the fools fooled. And that is not and will not sit well with the majority of people in this country. That fake Greek temple he used as his backdrop for accepting the nomination is still very much in the minds of people. And personally I have had not a few black people in my cab who wish he would just shut up and sit in the oval office and get out after his term. To them he is a symbol, nothing more, and he has not done and will not do any more for African americans thaan any other Democrat has done in the last 50 years.

We are going to have to be very watchful in the next 18 months as the Lefties know thaat the popular mood is turning against them and they will very likely lose both houses in 2010; so they are going to try to have all their bullcrap poushed through by then and irreversibly hardwired into the law and the buearacracy. We have to fight hard and pay attention to these tricksters and call their cards at every turn. Otherwise we will have to undo more than the Commerce Clause, and there will be blood.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Didn't Andrew Jackson say, when the Supreme Court ordered him to respect a treaty with the Cherokee, "Mr. Justice Marshall has issued his opinion. Now let us see him enforce it"?

Click to expand...

Exactly, this is one of the little-known issues that all of American Constitutional law has hinged upon since 1787. The proper functioning of the government is dependent upon all three branches recognizing the authority of, and cooperating with, each other. If a situation arises where this system breaks down, the nation is at risk of tyranny. There are many Americans who feel just a crisis exists today, having begun with the G.W. Bush junta's power grab following 9/11, and now being radically expanded under the administration of Barry Soetoro a.k.a. "President Barack Obama."

The critical problem we are facing today is not "bad policy" but the alarming fact that a majority of our political "representatives" are engaging in clearly criminal activity under color of law.

I would point out to Alexcabbie, who keeps referring to Obama and the "lefties," that both the left and right "wings" are attached to the same bird. The control center of the bird is in it's brain, not it's wings. The continuous left vs. right "debate" is a false paradigm to keep the people fighting with each other rather than joining together to deal with their common enemy who seeks to conquer them all. This is a CLASSIC MILITARY TACTIC called "divide and conquer." Everyone has heard of it! The American people (and indeed the free people of the world) need to recognize that we are under covert military attack.

Remember the fearsome "Wizard of Oz" with his booming, frightening voice, commanding Dorothy to "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" THERE IS A MESSAGE IN THAT.

Many prominent people recognize that "Obama" is merely a front man, a puppet who is working for the very same foreign crime syndicate which put G.W. Bush in power. A few are featured in the 2009 documentary The Obama Deception (watch it free online), including former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, Trends forecaster Gerald Celente, musician Willie Nelson and even veteran rap artists like KRS-One and Professor Griff. But you'd never know it if you're relying on the mainstream corporate media like TV and major newspapers. Operation Mockingbird is still in full effect, for those unaware.

Anyway, my whole point is DON'T BUY INTO FALSE EITHER/OR CHOICES where SOMEONE ELSE has already decided what your two choices are. Look for the HIDDEN THIRD CHOICE which is not in the spotlight; search for TRUE solutions to any given problem. The two wings of the Establishment bird may be controlled by a single brain, but each of us ALSO has a brain of our own. All we need to do is begin to use it.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Didn't Andrew Jackson say, when the Supreme Court ordered him to respect a treaty with the Cherokee, "Mr. Justice Marshall has issued his opinion. Now let us see him enforce it"?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yep, Andrew Jackson proved that the treaties and the word of the USA are worthless and subject to he individual whims of the POTUS. It doesn't matter what the law, constitution or honor are, one man can claim himself king of the US and do whatever he wants to. This is the basis of the present day political environment that we live under in the US, where one man is king. This is exactly what George Washington warned of. No better example of this is than our president/king that gets to award his cronies when elections are won. Yes Andres Jackson started the "Spoils System" that crowns the president, "King of the US for the next four years".