6 thoughts on “States’ Rights Update: MA Sues Feds on DOMA; CO on GM; More States for Firearms Freedom”

  1. In the farmer & wheat case, the justice essentially argued: if we let one farmer do it, others will do it and there goes our price fixing, oops, control. “Clearly”, the justice erred. It’s never too late to correct a bad decision made by an earlier court.

    What about Marbury v Madison wherein the Supreme Court announced it had the power of Judicial Review over the Congress? In one of the Federalist Papers, a Framer states that he expects the several sovereign states would “erect barriers” against an overreaching Federal government. He didn’t mention the Supreme Court.

    “Emerging consensus” really means people are waking up to our legacy of natural, unalienable rights as sovereign people. Nothing new is emerging. We’ve just been negligent in guarding our liberty.

  2. MA sues Feds??? Kerchner sues Feds??? MA sues Feds??? Kerchner sues Feds??? Get the point. If Kerchner doesn’t have standing neither does MA. So why is MA wasting their time sueing? Why is Kerchner wasting his time sueing. Come on folks I know you’ll are smarter than this. Immunity??? Wait don’t the Feds have immunity from MA???

  3. Phil,

    As I’ve said before, I admire your patience with the Obots, but for your own good health, the advancement of your blog, and the utility of your honest readers, why not establish some criteria whereby you ban permanently some of the posters here, who do not even attempt to reason?

    I found on my many blogs, that a strict ban of the dishonest argumentator, culls out hundreds of hours of useless debate and nit picking…

    1. Civis naturaliter natus,

      Phil,

      As I’ve said before, I admire your patience with the Obots, but for your own good health, the advancement of your blog, and the utility of your honest readers, why not establish some criteria whereby you ban permanently some of the posters here, who do not even attempt to reason?

      I found on my many blogs, that a strict ban of the dishonest argumentator, culls out hundreds of hours of useless debate and nit picking…

      1. What you currently see has been brought down to a dull roar after threats had already been issued some time ago;

      2. I don’t censor the “useless debate and nit picking” that is in my specific direction; I would encourage you and other commenters that if you want certain discussions to cease and desist, don’t respond.

      -Phil

  4. The idea that wheat used on one’s own farm, affects interstate commerce and thus can be federally recognized, is philosophically absurd…!

    How does the commercial market get affected, when there are no consequences; because the farmer who considers growing wheat to fead his animals, instead of bying it, could just as well sell the animals, and not grow it, as grow it and sell them. So, the farmer could argue that the Feds desire to control the hypothetical wheat market on the interstate level, wants to control his decision making process, not only his wheat, and that violates his rights as a free citizen, a property holder, and entrepeneur in a free market.

Comments are closed.