Taking bets! Feds vs States

Joe Steel · 07-02-09, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

And thus: You argree that, ultimately, the states are sovereign.

Of course not.

The States are creatures of the People. If your bizarre idea ever were to be implemented it would be implemented because the sovereign People wanted their creatures, the State governments, to do it.

Goobieman · 07-02-09, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Steel

Of course not.

Thatd odd...
You said that it was possible for the states to dissolve the federal government without the federal governemnt having any legal way to stop it.
How is that NOT agreeing withmy argument that, between the two, the states are sovereign?

wbreese91 · 07-04-09, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

Thatd odd...
You said that it was possible for the states to dissolve the federal government without the federal governemnt having any legal way to stop it.
How is that NOT agreeing withmy argument that, between the two, the states are sovereign?

Because that would entail him admiting he was wrong....and we all know the likelyhood of that happening.

Joe Steel · 07-06-09, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

Thatd odd...

You said that it was possible for the states to dissolve the federal government without the federal governemnt having any legal way to stop it.

How is that NOT agreeing with my argument that, between the two, the states are sovereign?

Ultimately, only the People are sovereign.

phattonez · 07-06-09, 09:15 AM

^^And the people authorized the constitution.

Goobieman · 07-06-09, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Steel

Ultimately, only the People are sovereign.

These issue here is state v federal sovereignty (see: thread title)
And thus, yoiu agree with me, that the states are sovereign.

wbreese91 · 07-07-09, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Steel

Ultimately, only the People are sovereign.

*Sigh* and who make up the states? which make up the nation?

Plaw · 07-07-09, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baralis

If anyone follows the Glenn Beck program and recent news...

Several states are inacting legislation which says that in their state that the federal government cannot regulate firearms that are made in their state and remain in their state. I believe this is a precursor for things to come, but back on topic.

On todays show they had a 10th amendment expert on the show and he stated that he believed the federal court will squash these states rights by expanding the right of federal regulation into "anything that may interfere with interstate trade". So the federal government may say that guns can be considered a tool to commit a crime that interferes with interstate trade.

I feel he may be right. I do not see the federal government relinquishing any of the power it has taken. I think the federal government will once again overstep their power in its quest to gain more power.

What do you think? And will states continue to try and take back their rightful powers?

The Congress will regulate gun sales under the powers granted to them under the "commerce clause" in Article 1, sec. 8 of the constitution. Basically, the courts have held consistently that congress can regulate anything that substantially impacts interstate commerce.

This has been interpreted to include more than the sale of finished goods or services. For example, even if the guns are manufactured and sold within one state, it's highly likely that the raw materials used in the manufacturing process were imported, thus impacting interstate commerce. It is also higly likely that the company making the guns has a bank account, uses a computer, uses the phones, etc... all of which also impact interstate commerce. As you can see, by this interpretation it's very difficult to argue that any business is an intrastate concern.

The "commerce clause" has been interpreted by the courts to give congress pretty broad powers. I doubt that will change anytime soon.

Joe Steel · 07-08-09, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phattonez

^^And the people authorized the constitution.

Exactly.

The People, not the States, ratified the Constitution.

Joe Steel · 07-08-09, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goobieman

These issue here is state v federal sovereignty (see: thread title)
And thus, yoiu agree with me, that the states are sovereign.

No.

The People are sovereign.

Being sovereign means you don't have to take orders from anyone.

The United States and the States take orders from the People.

Therefore, the United States and the States are not sovereign.

07-06-09, 09:15 AM	#145
phattonez Austro-Libertarian Join Date: Jun 2009 Last Seen: 03-16-10 08:59 AM Location: UCLA, Los Angeles, CA Posts: 3,798 Thanks: 397 Thanked 627 Times in 432 Posts Lean: Libertarian Gender:	Re: Taking bets! Feds vs States ^^And the people authorized the constitution.
	__________________ " Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. " - Matthew 5:44-45 "Our politicians do not purchase votes, the advocate 'social' programs. It comes to the same thing." - Frank Chodorov

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to Plaw For This Useful Post:
wbreese91