[Mars]

I'm just confused by Titan's statment. He makes it sound like there's actually some type of intra-Federalism strife, which would be . . . unexpected.

[Bob-san]

So... last I heard, the count was 21 states have joined new hampshire?

I heard 9, but that's still 18% of the states. I'm curious to more valid sources for all this. That guy is a nutjob if there ever was one, though his posts about this topic in particular seems much more grounded in reality. The thing is the more states that introduce bills like this, the more states that WILL introduce bills like this.

[iamzack]

Arizona had one AGES ago. Provided for everything int he event of breaking off from the US and all.

[Titan]

The way my dads friend (who pretty much spends his free nights going to town hall, to give you the idea) explained it to me is: NH is no longer following laws set up by the national goverment.

[iamzack]

NH legislators wrote a bill. We can start caring if it gets passed. Until then, no big deal.

[Charismatic]

Someone start citing some sources. 21 states joined, 9 states joined? 18%?

[Bob-san]

Someone start citing some sources. 21 states joined, 9 states joined? 18%?

Take a look at the Crazy's newer blog posts. Basically they're saying that anything not listed in the US Constitution is null and void and then making a rule about some aspect, like guns. IIRC Montana's book says that any citizen can own a gun not made in Montana, and sets rules about what type of guns are OK (pistols, shotguns, single-shot rifles) and which are not OK (multi-shot rifles like assault rifles, machine guns, cannons), and set a rule about a required engraving of "Made in Montana".

[Solatar]

Someone start citing some sources. 21 states joined, 9 states joined? 18%?

Take a look at the Crazy's newer blog posts.

At this point I'd be interested in seeing sources that are NOT affiliated with Crazy.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

So now government sources then. 

[Bob-san]

http://halturnershow.blogspot.com/2009/02/something-big-is-happening-9-us-states.html

Three of those are broken links (last I checked), but the sources are perfectly valid when they cite the bills or laws. Most of them effectively say that in regards to the 10th Amendment, they declare null and void all laws restricting their rights not specifically delegated to the national government, and that a copy of this bill will be sent to every state legislator, every other state's head legislator, the national legislators, and the President of the USA. So basically going the finger to the Federal side of things while asking for help from other neighboring states. Some bills say to every state, some will specifically state neighboring states.

[Nuclear1]

In other news, Indiana, Texas, Alaska, Nebraska among US states proposing controversial legislation stating "water is wet."

Give me three solid examples of the Federal government "trampling" all over States' rights and powers and I'll lead the secessionists myself. It's called the "necessary and proper clause." Love it.

[BloodEagle]

1. Patriot Act.

2. Any illegal drug law.

That's two.

[Bob-san]

In other news, Indiana, Texas, Alaska, Nebraska among US states proposing controversial legislation stating "water is wet."

Give me three solid examples of the Federal government "trampling" all over States' rights and powers and I'll lead the secessionists myself. It's called the "necessary and proper clause." Love it.

1) Patriot Act
2) Anything to do with restricting the sale of firearms
3) Anything to do with prosecuting crimes committed in states (criminal law enacted by the national government only applies to the military and being outside of the USA proper, such as on a US ship)
4) Plenty of unreasonable search & seizure, including "information" bureaus trespassing to acquire evidence.
5) Agricultural Adjustment Act
6) Anything to do with the Death Penalty
7) Anything to do with assisted suicide
8) Anything to do with gay marriage
9) Anything to do with marijuana
10) Treaties that legislate law internationally

Even if you see the law as being good, the law itself is illegal. Basically then we can continue on and include a number of issues from pasts wars including the Japanese internment under an executive order during World War II, prohibition and later establishment of a minimum drinking age (setting 21 as the minimum age if a state wanted transportation funds, without which many states would be forced into bankruptcy). On and on.

[Solatar]

As previously stated (by myself and nuclear1) the elastic clause gives Congress near carte blanche as long as a law can be somehow justified as "necessary and proper". If the Constitution was as cut and dry on this subject as many of you are making it, then there would be a significantly less amount of debate on this subject. Drug laws, etc. have all been passed because they have been deemed necessary and are thus in full compliance with the constitution. They do NOT constitute "trampling" of States' rghts and powers.

But then again, the apparent contradictions between these two clauses (the enumerated powers vs. elastic clause) has been a subject of intense debate for years.

[Bob-san]

As previously stated (by myself and nuclear1) the elastic clause gives Congress near carte blanche as long as a law can be somehow justified as "necessary and proper". If the Constitution was as cut and dry on this subject as many of you are making it, then there would be a significantly less amount of debate on this subject. Drug laws, etc. have all been passed because they have been deemed necessary and are thus in full compliance with the constitution. They do NOT constitute "trampling" of States' rghts and powers.

But then again, the apparent contradictions between these two clauses (the enumerated powers vs. elastic clause) has been a subject of intense debate for years.

Which is showing especially now. Some prior-Blue states are now Red, as the federal government has shifted from Red to now Blue. It's all about which way you view the laws. There is an argument to be made that the 10th Amendment restricting Federal power has made the Necessary and Proper Clause null and void. The Amendment came after the Constitution (and thus the clause). There are also other issues that some states are being "intruded" upon. One that comes to mind is the Real ID Act, which moves the right to issue IDs from individual states to degrading the status of those state-only IDs in favor of Federal guidelines.

[Kosh]

Which is showing especially now. Some prior-Blue states are now Red, as the federal government has shifted from Red to now Blue.

Given Obama's overwhelming victory in the electoral college and the large democratic majority in the senate I would say you've got it a bit backwards.

[Bob-san]

Which is showing especially now. Some prior-Blue states are now Red, as the federal government has shifted from Red to now Blue.

Given Obama's overwhelming victory in the electoral college and the large democratic majority in the senate I would say you've got it a bit backwards.

Take a look at what matters here--state legislators. Even so, many Democratic states have similar proposals being prepared for a vote. Obama had a pretty big majority, but part of that majority is losing hope in him. The stimulus plan, for example, was a load of bull**** if there ever was such a thing. It's just not enough and many Republicans specifically will be angry about the 12 hours it took for the Senate version to appear in Congress and be voted upon. 48 hours was the promise, and 1100 pages was the length.

[Hellstryker]

@Titan: There's not going to be a revolution (Note, I'm not saying there shouldn't be). I thought like you did a year ago (albeit for different reasons). Quit dreaming.

[Charismatic]

At this point I'd be interested in seeing sources that are NOT affiliated with Crazy.

Lolz.

And im all for extended clips and automatic pistols btw.

[Titan]

heh, my family just bought a couple A-15 actions.