[quote]pushharder wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Freedom country.
IrishSteel wrote:
Well I’m packing up my game and I’m a head out west . . .
Yup, I’m with you, Irish. It’s our sacred duty to counterbalance the creeping liberalism in such places as Missoula, Montana and Moscow, Idaho.
Just gotta squirrel away a bit more coin and I’m on my way.
Ya simply can’t argue with a picture that beautiful. There’s a damn good reason Montana is known as “Big Sky country”. Fuck, I need a vacation to the wilderness now… I miss mountains and wildlife.
Stop by sometime.[/quote]
You got it. Depends on the finances, but if I can I’m planning several road trips this summer and one of them is hopefully going to be in your neck of the woods. Would love to stop by.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
While this is a noble effort, anyone that knows the history of the courts interpretation of interstate commerse knows this has no chance of succeeding. If they can regulate a farmer’s production of wheat to feed his own cattle, they can regulate anything they choose to regulate under the intersate commerse clause.
There are very few states’ rights recognized by the courts. This is the problem. States’ reaccerting rights they should already have is a waste of time. Especially given the future prospect of the court make-up.
Funny how the commerce clause always trumps the Ninth and Tenth Amendment.
In fact, the few words in that clause effectively have become the most powerful words in the entire Constitution. Every other consideration must bow before it. Like I said, despite their explicit language even the Ninth and Tenth Amendments must be subservient.
Fuckin judicial branch is so busy legislating from the bench that they don’t have time to put the commerce clause in its place.[/quote]
You must be proud of your state Push. I’m extremely curious to see how this plays out. There is no doubt the commerce clause will be invoked.