Slashdot Mirror

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

This discussion led me to go look up the Tenth Amendment Center website. They are certainly big on letting people shoot and smoke all they want. If you think that the "war on some drugs" is just something to prop up the prison industry then what do you think of the "war on some guns"? I believe that it's going to be hard to tell people that they can smoke what they can grow but not shoot what they can build. If you think it's silly for someone to go to prison for three years for growing a common weed then would it not also be silly to put someone in prison for playing in their garage with some scrap metal?

What is this "bump stock" that so many congresscritters want to ban now? It's a piece of plastic on a threaded pipe, that's about it. What's a "silencer"? According to the ATF it can be a piece of metal that's got male threads on one end and female threads on the other, as in it can fit a common oil filter to the end of a rifle barrel. What is a "machine gun"? According to the ATF it can be something as simple as a length of string with a loop on each end, people have actually got these "machine guns" registered with the ATF.

I believe that what we've been seeing happen with federal drug laws will soon also happen with federal gun laws. It appears I'm not the only one. I went to the Tenth Amendment Center website and found a couple interesting recent articles on this debate over federal control on guns and drugs. I know lots of Slashdot readers don't like Second Amendment advocacy groups like the NRA, but if you are not a fan of federal prohibitions on marijuana possession then you need to have a different attitude on the NRA. The legal constructs that prohibit marijuana possession are the same constructs that prohibit the possession of silencers. If one goes then so does the other.

Here's just one example explaining this connection between gun laws and drug laws, the connection is the Tenth Amendment.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.co...

There is one important distinction though between gun laws and drug laws, gun laws have an additional amendment in the US Constitution that makes them problematic while drug laws do not. If you believe that Colorado can "go rogue" on drug laws and expect a federal ban on bump stocks to hold up in court then I believe you will be disappointed in the long run.

That was a good condensation of man of the issues. Thanks.

But a treaty that would violate the Constitution would not be a valid treaty.

Of course that makes sense, but some have argued that the “Supremacy Clause” gives treaties supreme authority. Fortunately for sanity, that is mostly garbage. See for example

http://tenthamendmentcenter.co...

Only if you are male, under 45, and have the courage to join the National Guard. Try actually reading the thing some time instead of the Ollie North Hezbolla version.

I have my pocket constitution right here. It does require that you have a brain capable of rational thought when you read it though. The federal government and the general citizenry as well as the supreme court for 230 plus years disagree with your liberal progressive assertion on the nature of the 2nd amendment, care to try again?

http://tenthamendmentcenter.co...

As soon as your lawyer club (ACLU) teachers club (NEA) vagina club (NOW) et. al. get regulated, you can bitch about the NRA not being regulated. Until then you are way off base. George Washington and the founders wanted all the gun owners to form organized militia such that anytime there were any threats to the constitution, foreign or domestic, we would all load our guns and saddle up and go kill the tyrants. You best be glad we have moderated from his position.

You are ignorant to the Countries founding documents, or simply choose to ignore the Law in order to maintain your communist sponsored opinion. http://tenthamendmentcenter.co...

how do they expect to win hearts and minds?

Get the government to threaten their competition so they don't face marketplace competition?

Fortunately *some* states have been nullifying the FDA on this one. Unfortunately they're fighting prohibited speech with compulsory speech. #fail

This is what happens when you make philosophically-inconsistent carve outs like "rights stop existing when money is involved". Those who fail to understand that attempts to impose control always create chaos may now enjoy their maybe-it's-frankenfish.

Actually, most Post Offices are owned by private individuals and leased back to the Government for use. As such, the building itself is legally exempt of the Federal Building restrictions and regarded much the same as any other private establishment. There have in fact been court cases regarding this, especially those regarding people getting injured at the property and the actual owners being liable rather than the USPS, establishing precedent. Brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner in a public location or threatening a federal employee is another matter, and carries with it quite severe penalties though.

Regardless of ownership, a Post Office is still usually considered Federal territory, exempt from State law. The liability question sounds like typical Government hypocrisy: "we claim authority but no liability".

Brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner in a public location or threatening a federal employee is another matter, and carries with it quite severe penalties though.

EXCEPT on Federal territory, laws governing this are entirely State matters and vary from State to State. Laws about Federal employees are yet another matter, and activities that the Feds claim are illegal are in fact explicitly LEGAL in some States. For example: a few states have passed laws saying it is ILLEGAL for a Federal employee to attempt to enforce certain Federal laws which the State considers unconstitutional, within that State. And before you scoff, that is 100% true and a Federal agent was just arrested a couple of months ago.

The Federal government is NOT "supreme" in all things. It is subject to State law.

This is the state that wants to protect residents healthcare "freedom" (LOL) by nullifying Obamacare, which has provided insurance to many of its citizens.

The only real hope is a constitutional amendment limiting the interstate commerce clause.

We're going on 80 years of oppression under /Wickard/ - it's not good strategy to hold out hope for something where you'd need to get a supermajority of Congress to vastly limit their own power and roll-back nearly a century of power and bureaucracy.

Nay, the only thing (within the State mechanism assumption) that is having success in limiting Federal power is nullification through initiative measures and that's even only on one very narrow power. Everything else is going wildly in the other direction, over any long-enough timescale.

It appears that the only real chance of sanity now lies outside the State mechanism - /Wickard/ may well have been the point of no return. Every system on earth ever run by power-lusty men has had a point of no return from which it's never recovered.

Be careful of 'hope' - you can die waiting for it to show up.

Those laws apply to in-state manufacturers as well

Indeed. With creative interpretation this law (singular) can be found to prohibit even growing food for your own consumption... Or anything else the Executive pleases.

Along with the "general welfare" clause — another loophole unfortunately left in the Constitution by its framers (the slave-owning gang of White men, you know) — this lets the President do anything — legally.

That some of the Executives hesitate, is a sign, that other things still sort-of work in this country. The Constitution does not, unfortunately...

It's not quite that simple. In the U.S., it still has to be ratified by the Senate, AND even if they do, it is not law if it conflicts with the Constitution.

That's hardly the point.
The constitution mentions nothing about unlocking cell phones or copyright length.
Those are merely provisions in US LAW.
Treaties can and DO override US Law all the time.

When the President and two thirds of the Senate concur that a treaty can invalidate some sections of US Code, that code is toast, unless the treaty tried to override the amendments 1 thru 8 which specifically limit federal power.

In spite of the 10th amendment, it is clear that the founders intended the Federal Government to acquire additional powers under the Treaty power, and specifically mentioned in "The Necessary and Proper Clause" of Article 1.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Treaties do have major implications under U.S. domestic law. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states.

See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause and here: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/11/13/can-treaties-override-the-constitution

The legislators don't know enough to ask the right questions nor do they have the training and experience needed to understand large system development.

It's not fair to expect Congress to be an expert on all these things - that's impossible. Literally.

Which is why the framers limited the Congress's authority to thirty narrowly defined powers. That's a reasonable number for one organization to handle.

Healthcare advocates should recognize that if they want healthcare to work well, having Congress wield the power to control it is a bad solution.

Re 'will do for much of the conflict"
Did you miss the optics of "California governor signs law defying cooperation with NDAA indefinite detention" and AB351?
http://rt.com/usa/california-ndaa-ban-law-612/
http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/issues/ndaa/ seems a few States are considering aspects of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF).

I will wish the states would revolt against crap like this from the Feds.

Your wish is granted... http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/

Amendment X to the Constitution..
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

A bit of perusing of that website ought to give you a better feel for what the states are doing
to blunt the power-grab out of DC...

...for the least transparent administration in American history. Perhaps the Obama Administration will restore the petition shortly after they turn over the Fast and Furious documents Obama has claimed Executive Privilege over.

This is also par for the course for the Obama Administration's constant defense of the TSA. When Texas tried to pass a bill to ban TSA groping in the state, the Obama Administration threatened to impose a no fly zone on Texas over the right for TSA agents to grope people. Do you think think the Obama Administration will be any less protective now that they're unionized.

Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz has called for the abolition of the TSA. Given the wasteful, intrusive, and ineffective security theater they stage, does anyone think the America public would object to to their abolition?

And sadly, unless New Hampshire leaves the US government, they are still under those same oppressive laws.

One very active aspect of the liberty movement here is restoration of the meaning and intent of the Tenth Amendment. New Hampshire was one of the first states to get this movement started a couple years ago.

New Hampshire also has Part I, Art. 7 of its own constitution, which ensures state sovereignty against anything the Federal government does that New Hampshire doesn't explicitly consent to. And then there's Part I, Art. 10, titled "Right of Revolution," which reads in part, "[W]henever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government."

Of course, on a practical level, our attempts at pushing back the Fedgov haven't amounted to much yet. But out of 400 legislators, in 2006, we elected one Free State Project participant; in 2008, four were elected, and as of 2010, 12-15 were elected (depending on whom you ask). In total, there are probably 40-50 pro-liberty legislators, and this number is only growing due to the work of groups like the N.H. Liberty Alliance.

I'm sure TSA is unhappy about this. They've long been talking about their intent to spread out into other modes of transportation. Since Amtrak's police have been throwing them out of train stations lately, they've no doubt been searching for any politically-convenient justification they can find to invade rail transit. Doubly so since Amtrak ridership is at an all-time high with people taking trains for the sole purpose of avoiding TSA.

For the politically-active among us, this is perhaps a good opportunity to write to U.S. congresspeople to alert them about TSA's misrepresentation of this report, as well as state congresspeople to encourage them to pass state-level legislation reining in TSA (Tenth Amendment Center has a pre-written Travel Freedom Act that works at the state level to criminalize invasive TSA screening procedures).

TSA isn't going to stop their reign of sexual assault and desecration of Constitutional rights until and unless the people stop it for them. Public opinion has been turning against TSA lately, especially with the three elderly travelers who were strip-searched late last year (about which TSA blatantly lied). Now is as good a time as ever to push your elected officials to stop TSA. The site in my sig is a good resource, as is Freedom To Travel USA. Please do anything and everything you can to help stop TSA.

This is true and more people need to talk about it. The states nullified the Real ID act which shows that it works if the people are politically active enough in their states.

One of the best ways to beat the federal government is to ignore it.

Check the progress of current nullification efforts here:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/

Also (and no I can't be assed to make links this time):

http://inclusion.semitagui.gov.co/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/Treaties.htm

http://www.asil.org/insigh10.cfm

http://florida.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/treaties-do-not-override-the-constitution/

This has become a popular meme in politics, but it simply isn't true. Re: Reid v. Covert, October 1956

More info here, here, & here.

I completely have faith in the state run media.
I was the product of government schools,
I was taught that our elected officials know better then us.
I was taught we had system of checks and balances.
I was taught money was evil.

Everything I was taught was bullshit, and I called them on it.
This does not help with grades.
I completely have faith in the state run media.
To report what the federal government wants them to report and hide the truth.
They abused the Commerce Clause, Viva 10th amendment!!!!!

You see, that's what people think health insurance is: just a way to get others to pay for their problems. Socialism and its "single payer" system will arrive eventually, it will just take a while. First, all the people who have insurance now will stop buying it. Insurance costs $6400/year while the fee for not having it is $700. Furthermore, many states have already passed nullification laws prohibiting the federal government from charging you the above fee, so if you live in, say, Idaho, you will not have to pay a thing. Then, when you get cancer, you can simply go to any insurance company and buy coverage at that point; the company will be forbidden to turn you down for this preexisting condition. Then employers will eventually start doing the same thing. The fee for employers not providing insurance is higher, $3200, but it is still higher than the coverage premiums. So the boss will tell you to just buy insurance when you need it and take an extra $2000/year raise (or not).

The insurance companies will start losing lots of money, since only the sick will be subscribed, and will raise your premiums. If price controls are instituted (and they will be), the insurance companies will start going bankrupt. Then we can have another huge bailout bill for the "too big to fail" ones, which will then end up being mostly owned and financed by the government. They will stay that way because there is no way to turn a profit when you stop being "insurance" and become "entitlement". Then we'll get another health reform bill, where the government will step in, raise everyone's taxes and just pay for health care itself, like most of the other countries do.

Of course, you'll have to contend with various problems that will bring, like long waiting times, care rationing, and "for your own good" legislation. But at least, everyone will finally be equal.

You really, really like to watch Fox News don't you? I hear them use that term all the time, and it's just ridiculous how right-wingers parrot their talking points in unison.

I never watch or listen to Fox News. Right now my TV is tuned to CNN, the only news I watch on TV. The only other station I watch is the History Channel. Two, I not a right winger, I am a center winger. I believe in and support liberty and small government. In other words I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Actually both are liberalism. Both the French and US Revolutions were based on this Liberalism.

The reality of the situation is that although the majority of people reject "Obama's Plan", once you explain to them what's actually in the bill the majority flip-flops into supporting it. That simply speaks to how good of a PR job Republicans have done.

Citation needed.

Obama isn't "forcing" a bill onto anyone. The Democrats were elected to a majority. It's their turn to enact legislation that satisfies their voter base's ideals. It's that simple.

Most people are against Obama Care so he is trying to force it down people's throats. And yes, until you can prove that once it's explained to them voters support it it is forcing it on people. As for a majority, yes Democrats have one now, but the latest elections saw the Democrats lose some seating. And I fully expect them to lose more come November if they insist on passing this health care plan.

Another thing, you say congress owes voters what they want. No they don't, they take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA. If you think doing what voters want and passing health care is part of it please tell me where health care is mentioned in the Constitution. And remember the Constitution places a limit on what government can do, if something is not mentioned government does not have the power. Here'e a hint, Article 1 Section 8 enumerates the powers of congress. Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People goes further and states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nowhere is health care delegated to the government. Now the Constitution allows a method by which health care can be added, it's called amending the Constitution. If the Democrats want to propose an amendment I'll support their effort to make the proposal. Then I'll promptly oppose said amendment, as some have said, though I disagree with what people may say I'll support their right to say it.

What the federal government does have the ability to do, as I've said a number of tymes, is to force states to allow interstate commerce, ie require states to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines. Which in not allowed now, each state regulates who can sell insurance in the state. So when someone, such as those political ads demanding a public option, state only a couple of insurance companies offer insurance in some states, remember that. If only one or two companies offer insurance in a state it's because that states grants them a monopoly/duopoly or whatever. I live in Minnesota and if health insurance is cheaper in South Dakota I should be able to buy that insurance.

Of course that's only part of the solution to rising medical costs. Another part of the solution is to give people who buy their own health insurance the same tax deductions employers get for offering insurance. When an employer offers insurance it can deduct the cost of insurance from it's taxes but when a private person buys insurance they can not deduct the cost from taxes.

By allowing a free marke

People convicted here (varies by state, etc, just generally speaking now) can have all or most of their lost rights, including voting or holding office, restored, after completion of parole and if they petition for them and the appropriate judge or whatever grants them back and so on. There's no one size fits every situation though, some states automatic, others some hoop jumping, some others never allow it. Small writeup on wikipedia about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression#Ex-Felon_disenfranchisement
One thing to always remember about the USA that I think is lost to a lot of people. It is thoeretically set up to be the united States, with that being the default, not the United states. We really do have at least in theory if not in practice 50 independent nations with a lot of different laws, in a federation.

    Now, this practice is in hot dispute all the time what with our federal government being on a mad power grab the last few decades, but in theory we have all these different "nations". States and nations were the same way back in term usage.

Me, I would prefer a LOT more "states" rights, as this would give the people here better choice on where they wanted to live, we'd have a lot more differences to help make that decision. The federal government has usurped so many things it really has no legal justification for that we are losing freedoms and rights all the time, IMO. For example, the federal government is only really supposed to regulate interstate commerce, NOT intra-state commerce, but they keep insisting they can just declare any commerce to be interstate, so they seize jurisdiction. It really sucks, too.

This whole scene is now being addressed, at least peacefully so far, by a lot of states re-declaring their sovereignty on what is legally theirs by our Constitution. This is known as the tenth amendment movement and is getting a lot of traction, several states legislatures have issued statements to that effect now, something like around 21 so far or pending.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/

And technically, if enough states decide to do it, they can assemble completely outside the federal government and just dissolve the whole thing, then go it alone or whatever is decided at that point, a new alliance or alliances. And it just might get to that point if conditions keep worsening in the US. And I hope it does, IMO, the federal government is way too far gone in abuse of power and not being able to run the economy in the black, or stay out of wars, etc, to have any justification for existence at this point, it is unfixable as it stands. Bloat, corruption, "feature creep", it's a big fat mess. They can't even run their own little area -DC- effectively. If they stuck to what is really the role of the federal government it wouldn't be near as bad as it is today, but they don't, and have gone off the deep end into power grabbing.

" . . . red states DO spend all the money blue states make."

I'm glad that you see this as a problem.

"(California and New York) . . . receive less money than many red states."

The question you should be asking is not which state "receives" more or less money, but where that money came from to begin with. Allowing the Federal government to confiscate massive amounts of wealth and then simply redistribute it to the states is a wasteful and ridiculous system. The people of California, New York, and the other 48 states would be much better off if the Federal government was about 1/4 of its current size. Then, a lot of that money would never leave the state to begin with! Let the blue states solve their blue state problems and the red states solve their red state problems and get big brother out of the "mandate" and "grant" and "earmark" business entirely.

Please do your part to support the state sovereignty movement and limit the power of the Federal Government to engage in such blatantly destructive policies.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

You are trying to make it seem as if Congress has no power to do anything other than that which is explicitly granted in the Constitution, which is comically untrue.

So what the hell does the 10th Amendment mean, then?:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Virginia Resultion of 1798, written by James Madison (the main author of the Constitution and the author of the Bill of Rights, including the 10th amendment) says:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Plus, the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson says this:

"Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

You are trying to make it seem as if Congress has no power to do anything other than that which is explicitly granted in the Constitution, which is comically untrue.

So what the hell does the 10th Amendment mean, then?:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Virginia Resultion of 1798, written by James Madison (the main author of the Constitution and the author of the Bill of Rights, including the 10th amendment) says:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Plus, the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson says this:

"Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

I don't want to come off as a nutjob here, but this country is falling down hard. A new revolution in the next 100 years appears to be more than possible at this point. Laws are getting absolutely ridiculous.

perhaps sooner that you think. It seems you're not the only nutjob:
State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing.
more .

The list of powers immediately following the first line, which you skipped in your summary, were intended to consist of the whole list of powers granted to congress. If 'general welfare' could be used the way you are reading it, the enumeration of specific powers is meaningless, as is the 10th amendment.

More importantly, it applies only to taxes and expenditures, as it is part of that specific enumerated power. It does not provide congress with a blank check to enact any regulation it wants, but it can lay taxes to provide for the common defence and general welfare.

It is possible for congress to regulate interstate commerce involving drugs, and the USC has said in Raich and Wickard that even if something is manufactured or grown without the intent to transport it across state lines it is part of interstate commerce. I would argue that just because the USC says something doesn't make it so, but that is a much better argument for the drug laws being constitutional than the general welfare clause.