Missouri Governor Vetos Federal Gun Law Nullification Bill.
Posted by Eireann 10 years, 11 months ago to Government
The day AFTER Americans in Missouri celebrate Independence Day, their Governor decided that States Rights are superseded by Federal Law. How nice. He thinks that banning a list of gun owners infringes on First Amendment rights. Yes. You heard this correctly. He also thinks that House Bill 436 violates the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.
I'm getting really tired of this backwards way government has come to work in this country. The States were supposed to be sovereign, independent states who could make their own laws and set their own standards as was willed by the people of those states so long as they did not violate the Constitutional law of the United States. What in the world is wrong with people today? Since when did the legislation of morality in ANY sense ever work to curb violence, create responsible individuals, or make Man more free?
I'm so fed up. Pun intended.
I'm getting really tired of this backwards way government has come to work in this country. The States were supposed to be sovereign, independent states who could make their own laws and set their own standards as was willed by the people of those states so long as they did not violate the Constitutional law of the United States. What in the world is wrong with people today? Since when did the legislation of morality in ANY sense ever work to curb violence, create responsible individuals, or make Man more free?
I'm so fed up. Pun intended.
welcome Eireann. Missouri is always screwed due to St. Louis proper and Kansas City. The rest of the state is slave to those two cities
'Oh give me land lots of land under stary skies above. Don't fence me in.'
I would go nuts going back to a situation of people on the floor above and below me, balconies side by side-no matter how pretty or well-built. just not me. In WI, I know this woman who worked for the state government in Madison. Her job was something environmental in the title, but the upshot was they bullied farmers into not selling their farms to developers. If you wanted to buy an existing farmhouse, you had to get on a list, and the state could sign off on you as the buuyer with the promise you would not build another house on the property. At the time, they were getting mixed cooperation, but they had a plan for that. They sent out surveyors to document and check deeds-BUT while they were surveying they mapped the lands for environmental issues, such as wetlands, prairie, etc. so when the farmer got ready to sell, they'd show up and say, you can't do this or that due to this environmental concern. leverage with a smile. that was at the state level, not federal.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595230...
the other show highlighted a study, but I can't find it right now. The thing in Wisconsin-this straight from someone whose job it was to do that, and she told me all about it, pridefully. She was quite pleased with their progress in the rural area outside Madison.
It only matters in things the constitution ALLOWS the fed to control...
"Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption in Ohio. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._.........
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
Mark Levine wrote a great study of the Supreme Court, and this is the most damning ruling in his learned interpretation. His book is in most public libraries: Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America.
I agree with Mr. Levine that this decision was the most damning ruling ever. It set the precedent for the federal government to regulate everything including what I put in or take out of my own body. People I've spoken to think that it is OK for the government to regulate behavior. I mean, it starts with forcing a man to buy grain instead of growing it himself and ends when? By the government telling us that we can only have children if they are from genetically perfected embryos implanted in our womb and devoid of birth defects so they don't become a burden on society or genetically engineered human beings who are created to perform a certain task? Science fiction? Oh no. They want this power and I just stand in awe of how willing people are to give it to them. I do not understand.
Ok. That went far off topic, but I can see now why we can legally be forced by the government to buy a product we don't want. The precedent was set in 1942.
A bus load of lawyers were driving down a country road, when all of a sudden, the bus ran off the road and crashed into a tree in an old farmer's field.
The old farmer, after seeing what happened, went over to investigate. He then proceeded to dig a hole and bury the lawyers.
A few days later, the local sheriff came out, saw the crashed bus, and asked the farmer where all the lawyers had gone. The old farmer said he had buried them. The sheriff then asked the old farmer, "Were they ALL dead?" The old farmer replied, "Well, some of them said they weren't, but you know how them lawyers lie."
The farmer wasn't the grandson of farmer Filburn, by chance? ;-)
If so, then he was obeying the law, since the lawyers were from out of state....
SCOTUS basically said that since there were farmers growing wheat for sale in the neighboring state, Filburn did not have the right to intrude on their interstate enterprise by growing his own. He, by ruling, had to buy theirs.
This ends up with The Affordable Care Act....