The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 5:26 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:49 pm
Posts: 67
I'm citing this article because of the extensive links. This article cites S.C. case
Wickard v. Filburn, which was not an end to these deliberations. See United States v. Lopez

Not Everything is “Interstate Commerce”

Reestablish the states’ control over commerce within their borders

Iowa, Florida and New Hampshire

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&menu=false&hbill=hf380

Quote:
Sec. 2. NEW SECTION . 554E.2 Legislative intent.
3.Under Article I, section 8, clause 3, of the Constitution of the United States, the
federal government is empowered to regulate commerce among the several states.
4. The power to regulate intrastate commerce is reserved to the states or the people
under the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
5. During the constitutional convention, the founders considered and rejected a plan
which would have authorized the federal government to not only regulate commerce
among the several states, but also any activity having spillover effects across state
lines.


Quote:
House File 380 in Iowa reaffirms that the Constitution grants the federal government
the power to regulate commerce among the several states, but the power to regulate
intrastate commerce is reserved to the states or the people under the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments. The bill goes on to declare:
All goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the
boundaries of this state that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries
of this state shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall
not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress
of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce.
If the bill passes into law, any agent attempting to enforce federal law in violation
of the act would be guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor and subject to appropriate
penalties.


Quote:
The Iowa bill, sponsored by Rep. Kim Pearson (R-Pleasant Hill), was initially filed
in Feb. 2011 and will carry over into the 2012 session. Senate File 272, introduced
at the same time by Sen. Kent Sorenson, serves as the companion bill.
A second Senate bill, Senate File 385, with 11 co-sponsors, proposes even stricter
penalties. It would make it a class D felony to enforce any federal law interfering
with intrastate commerce – that’s commerce within Iowa’s borders.


More recently the Florida Senate bill (-SJ 68) was Introduced on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:28 AM.

http://myfloridahouse.com/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=47760&

Quote:
General Bill by Evers
Intrastate Commerce: Citing this act as the "Intrastate Commerce Act"; providing that certain goods grown, manufactured, or made in this state and services performed in this state are not subject to the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce; prohibiting any official, agent, or employee of the Federal Government or of the state from attempting to enforce federal laws, rules, or regulations in violation of the act; providing penalties; providing for application, etc.


It is my dream that a State might grow a pair. Have to see what happens.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:44 pm 
Offline
Web Ninja
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 8248
Location: The Tunt Mansion
Thumbs up.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:19 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
+1

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Posts: 5716
Interesting. That would remove so much power from the Fed that it's certainly going to be contentious.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:14 pm 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
Look up the Montana rifle. It was plans to challenge the batfe by making a rifle in Montana and selling it without submitting federal papers.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 236 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group