Want a NEW Machinegun? The ATF may have just allowed you to make one!**Update Post 72

[cekim]

If I could, any libertarian with the most passing interest in how our courts today treat the Constitution need to read Clark Neily's book. Other than your green membership, it will be best $20 you've spent all year. Focuses on the Commerce Clause and the Rational Basis Test, and how BS they both are.

I've met Clark a number of times, had him speak at my school, and even had drinks with him at the SCOTUS building. He's the man and knows what he's talking about.



http://www.amazon.com/Terms-Engagement-Enforce-Constitutions-Government/dp/1594036969

Yeah, the FDR era socialism/statism push wasn't just about FDR or the depression. They saw an opening to completely re-write the relationship of the people with the federal government and took it...

They had been making incremental in-roads from day one, but the "Rich Man's Panic" that brought about the Federal Reserve and WWI was a huge lurch forward and then FDR fired the kill-shot to the Constitution as we thought we knew it.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Yeah, the FDR era socialism/statism push wasn't just about FDR or the depression. They saw an opening to completely re-write the relationship of the people with the federal government and took it...

They had been making incremental in-roads from day one, but the "Rich Man's Panic" that brought about the Federal Reserve and WWI was a huge lurch forward and then FDR fired the kill-shot to the Constitution as we thought we knew it.

The mechanism to get there wasn't to hard. The Court Packing Plan worked in every way FDR intended, except he never had to pass it.

 

[Bonesinium]

After watching the video from your link I ended up finding this

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/28/14954...rt-the-health-care-law-and-medicaid-expansion

I hadn't heard this before. It really is a great example of what is talked about, how the Supreme Court colludes with the rest of the government to find ways to justify themselves.

I can't believe (well, actually I can, but you know..) that a SCOTUS justice likened government controlled health insurance to "a boatload of free money).

JUSTICE KAGAN: The exact same argument. So that really reduces to the question of why is a big gift from the Federal government a matter of coercion? In other words, the Federal government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money. There are no -there's no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it's just a boatload of Federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's healthcare. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.

MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Kagan, let me —I mean, I eventually want to make a point where even if you had a stand alone program that just gave 100 percent, again 100 percent boatload, nothing but boat load — well, there would still be a problem.

JUSTICE KAGAN: And you do make that argument in your brief, just a stand alone program, a boatload of money, no extraneous conditions, no matching funds, is coercive?

MR. CLEMENT: It is. But before I make that point, can I simply say you built into your question the idea that there are no conditions. And of course, when you first asked it was what about the same program with 100 percent matching on the newly eligible mandatory individuals, which is how the statute refers to them. And that would have a very big condition. And the very big condition is that the States in order to get that new money, they would have to agree not only to the new conditions but the government here is — the Congress is leveraging their entire prior participation in the program -

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, let me give you a hypothetical, Mr. Clement.

MR. CLEMENT: Sure.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Now, suppose I'm an employer and I see somebody I really like and I want to hire that person. And I say Im going to give you $10 million a year to come work for me. And the person says well, I — you know, I've never been offered anywhere approaching $10 million a year, of course I'm going to say yes to that. Now we would both be agreed that that's not coercive, right.

MR. CLEMENT: Well, I guess I would want to know where the money came from. And if the money came from -

JUSTICE KAGAN: Wow, wow. I'm offering you $10 million a year to come work for me and you are saying this is anything but a great choice?

MR. CLEMENT: Sure, if I told you actually it came from my own bank account. And that's what's really going on here in part. And that's why it's not

JUSTICE KAGAN: But, Mr. Clement — Mr. Clement, can that possibly be.

Former Harvard Law Dean, we know she can't be this dumb, which only proves what she is doing is intentional. Wow.

Can't believe I missed that from 2.5 years ago.

 

[browncoat]

After watching the video from your link I ended up finding this

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/28/14954...rt-the-health-care-law-and-medicaid-expansion

I hadn't heard this before. It really is a great example of what is talked about, how the Supreme Court colludes with the rest of the government to find ways to justify themselves.

I can't believe (well, actually I can, but you know..) that a SCOTUS justice likened government controlled health insurance to "a boatload of free money).



Former Harvard Law Dean, we know she can't be this dumb, which only proves what she is doing is intentional. Wow.

Can't believe I missed that from 2.5 years ago.

The crazy thing is that liberals, at the same time they are advancing the argument in the courts that federal money isn't coercive (even though it is coerced out of the hands of citizens), are also advocating that private money (political spending) is. Talk about having cake and eating it too.

 

[DarthRevan]

After watching the video from your link I ended up finding this

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/28/14954...rt-the-health-care-law-and-medicaid-expansion

I hadn't heard this before. It really is a great example of what is talked about, how the Supreme Court colludes with the rest of the government to find ways to justify themselves.

I can't believe (well, actually I can, but you know..) that a SCOTUS justice likened government controlled health insurance to "a boatload of free money).



Former Harvard Law Dean, we know she can't be this dumb, which only proves what she is doing is intentional. Wow.

Can't believe I missed that from 2.5 years ago.

All the more reason to focus my retirement money into .223/5.56 and 9mm/.45
lead and brass don't lose value.

 

[josh2600]

He just thought that any mods to guns in mass is illegal . He has a 1911 with m1912 style tiny sights I told him to bring it to a smith to get better sights and he thought it was illegal lol.

He's a fudd when it comes to the laws . But he owns some pretty cool toys.

"I robbed a bank and shot three cops, what are you in for?"

"Oh, I changed out the sights on my 1911."

 

[exo]

"I robbed a bank and shot three cops, what are you in for?"

"Oh, I changed out the sights on my 1911."

"Unlicensed gunsmithing??" *backs away, slowly*

 

[pdm]

Former Harvard Law Dean, we know she can't be this dumb, which only proves what she is doing is intentional. Wow.

Can't believe I missed that from 2.5 years ago.

Credentialed, not educated.

 

[Bonesinium]

Credentialed, not educated.

Well both. She knew exactly what she was doing, why she was doing it, and how it relates to the law, the people and her agenda. She picked her agenda.

 

[crazymjb]

There is zero chance it will be decided favorably. SCOTUS already ruled against it in 1942 in Wickard v Filburn and they Re-affirmed this infringement on the tenth amendment in 2005 with GOlzales v Raich.

Prepare to throw up:







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Those rulings are an excellent example as to how ****ed scotus is... those decisions completely contradict the very existence of the commerce clause in the first place... if interstate commerce really was presumed to have that broad of a reach then why the **** would they even include the commerce clause in the first place... Ill answer that... because SCOTUS perverted it keep power in the hands of the feds.

Mike


Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[jar]

If I could, any libertarian with the most passing interest in how our courts today treat the Constitution need to read Clark Neily's book. Other than your green membership, it will be best $20 you've spent all year. Focuses on the Commerce Clause and the Rational Basis Test, and how BS they both are.
http://www.amazon.com/Terms-Engagement-Enforce-Constitutions-Government/dp/1594036969

Just ordered one via the Comm2A link, thanks for the pointer.