Feds claim authority to regulate in-state commerce

[Desertdog]

This is where they really want to go.  Feds Rule Everything.

Feds claim authority to regulate in-state commerce
Government cites Constitution in demanding dismissal of gun challenge

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


The federal government is claiming in court documents demanding the dismissal of a gun-law challenge in Montana the authority to regulate in-state commerce under the Constitution's Commerce clause.

But the plaintiff in the case says the court needs to review that provision in its amended form – since the 10th Amendment, adopted after the Commerce Clause, can be viewed as modifying the Constitution's provisions regarding the regulation of commerce, specifically granting additional authority to states.

The argument is arising in a lawsuit filed in Montana against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and others. The complaint seeks a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana's management of its own firearms within state boundaries.

Continued
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123419

[MicroBalrog]

Welcome to 1942.

[Standing Wolf]

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his chickens. The U.S. government had imposed 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.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause (which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States") decided that, because 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, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

Would've made sense to Lenin and Stalin, although their method was considerably simpler and more straightforward: they starved millions of Russian and Ukrainian kulaks (small farmers) to death.