Imagine my shock upon opening the Drudge Report this morning and seeing this article from CBSNews.com: South Carolina Rep. Mike Pitts has introduced legislation that would mandate that gold and silver coins replace federal currency as legal tender in his state. In an interview, Pitts told Hotsheet that he believes that “if the federal government…Details
Editor’s Note: Scheduled to be introduced in Maryland next week – a bill to make medical marijuana legal within the state. This is classic federal government paint with a “broad brush” methodology and it’s good to see my home state taking a stand. While I am firmly against drug misuse, the federal government really has…Details
“Congress has power to specify rules to govern the manner by which people may exchange or trade goods from one state to another, to remove obstructions to domestic trade erected by states, and to both regulate and restrict the flow of goods to and from other nations (and the Indian tribes) for the purpose of promoting the domestic economy and foreign trade.”Details
Alabama State Representative Mac Gipson has introduced House Bill 48 (HB48), the “Firearms Freedom Act.” If passed, the bill would “exempt from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within the borders of Alabama.” While the FFA’s title focuses on federal…Details
Wyoming State Representative David Miller has introduced a “Firearms Freedom Act” for the state – it’s filed as House Bill 28 (HB28). If passed, the will would provide “that specified firearms that are manufactured, sold, purchased, possessed and used exclusively within Wyoming shall be exempt from federal regulation, including registration requirements” Some supporters of the…Details
An honest reading of the Constitution with an original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers makes it quite clear that the federal government has no constitutional authority to override state laws on marijuana. All three branches of the federal government, however, have interpreted (and re-interpreted) the commerce clause of the Constitution to authorize them to…Details
Recently, the ornery Nancy Pelosi was asked, by CNSNews: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” The brilliant and philosophic Pelosi replied, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” From the CNSNews story:
Currently, each of the five health care overhaul proposals being considered in Congress would command every American adult to buy health insurance. Any person defying this mandate would be required to pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.
CNSNews followed up with Pelosi’s press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, and inquired again, “Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” All they got back was a September 16 press release titled “Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’”Details
As the Tenth Amendment becomes the platform to stop an over reaching federal government, do we trust the Supreme Court to be a fair arbiter?
The Supreme Court, according to many constitutionalists, has been delinquent in its responsibility to protect the intention of the U.S. Constitution. Many past Supreme Court decisions have become bad precedent, and that bad precedent continues to be the bases for big government advocates to site as a justification for a continued trampling of state, and individual rights.
People that believe the constitution is a “living document” historically have utilized the commerce clause to feed their insatiable quest to trample individual and state’s rights. The constitutional clause under section 8 of the powers delegated to Congress simply states; “To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”
The intention was not to be a conduit to suppress the rights and freedoms of the fifty states and their citizens. But that is exactly how the federal government gets its tentacles into places it has no right to be. If there was an intention to regulate internal state activity the word “among” would have been “within” the several states.Details
I haven’t been too friendly to some of the solutions that Randy Barnett has offered for the problems we face, but – in regards to an original understanding of the purpose and intention of the Constitution, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone better. His recent blog post over at Volokh, regarding his rebuttal at Politico.com…Details