Another thread?Oh, I get that. But we all know that is BS. I was just outlining how the agencies SHOULD and could do it to the same end. but my way is constitutional.
Another thread?Oh, I get that. But we all know that is BS. I was just outlining how the agencies SHOULD and could do it to the same end. but my way is constitutional.
Nah. as far as I am concerned my comment has run its course. Just an aside as to how it could be done properly.Another thread?
Gonzales v. Raich. It doesn't have to be interstate or even commerce for the feds to regulate it as interstate commerce.I am still struggling with where the Federal government has authority over an intrastate transaction between two citizens of the same State.
9th Amendment, 10th Amendment seems one of those should restrict the Federal government from infringing upon the 2nd Amendment within a State.
No asterisks, couldn't follow.Why is .gov trying so hard to revisit 04.19.1775?
Lexington and Concord. Shot heard 'round the world.No asterisks, couldn't follow.
FIFY. Such an innocuous sounding case has had such great ramifications to the freedom of the republic…Think wheat grown locally and bought locally can't be?
Stack that one on the list for a non-communist SCOTUS to revisit.Gonzales v. Raich. It doesn't have to be interstate or even commerce for the feds to regulate it as interstate commerce.
I am still struggling with where the Federal government has authority over an intrastate transaction between two citizens of the same State.
9th Amendment, 10th Amendment seems one of those should restrict the Federal government from infringing upon the 2nd Amendment within a State.
To me this all sounds like backdoor mandatory registration to know who has what for you can guess the eventual outcome.Does the fedgov tell us what we can do with any other personal property? I guess I can give away the gun and sell the box.
To me this all sounds like backdoor mandatory registration to know who has what for you can guess the eventual outcome.
This also really does sound a lot like Hitler to me in similarity with the bill's name being called the "safer communities act" when we all know in reality this will have zero impact on public safety.
However it was the same description Hitler used when enacting similar types of gun control when stating it would make the city's streets and community "safer."
I agree...but since when do those in the current administration (aka, of the 'left') actually follow the Constitution and allow it to direct / guide/ or shape their thinking?I am still struggling with where the Federal government has authority over an intrastate transaction between two citizens of the same State.
9th Amendment, 10th Amendment seems one of those should restrict the Federal government from infringing upon the 2nd Amendment within a State.
See also: Wickard v Filburn.Gonzales v. Raich. It doesn't have to be interstate or even commerce for the feds to regulate it as interstate commerce.
Again: see also: Wickard v Filburn. Refusal to participate in interstate commerce can be interpreted as impacting interstate commerce. Everything is interstate commerce.The hook to Interstate Commerce Clause is through the materials the object is made from. If the raw plastic, steel or aluminum was imported or crossed state lines to the factory making the item, it's potentially subject to Federal Regulation under the Interstate Commerce. Ask the dude who was arrested in the presence of a shotgun shell that had been acquired locally when a U.S. Attorney crucified him in a Federal District Court. The shot shell itself may not have crossed state lines, but everything used to make it did. Thus, everything made or manufactured in the U.S. can be hooked in using that logic. Think corn grown locally and bought locally can't be? Where did the tractors and everything in them, and the fuel for them, and the field fertilizers come from?
FIFY. Such an innocuous sounding case has had such great ramifications to the freedom of the republic…
I think my reference was too obscure…Again: see also: Wickard v Filburn. Refusal to participate in interstate commerce can be interpreted as impacting interstate commerce. Everything is interstate commerce.