|
Post by billt on Apr 28, 2007 21:31:21 GMT -5
fully aware that the SC has made those rulings and they are the way it stands today...and just as aware that IF the FF meant ALL commerce they would have said "all commerce", they CLEARLY defined the commerce they MEANT in the wording. commerce between the STATES as entities with the other states and foregin nations. the words "interstate commerce" are NOT IN THAT CLAUSE the word "interstate" is NOT in that clause.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 29, 2007 0:04:59 GMT -5
they did NOT conduct business with any foregin nation or any state. Evidently, I've spent a lot more time dealing with the federal court system that you (go figure). If you're such a hotshot attorney, go take these guys' cases! I'm sure that the prosecution would love for an amateur bowler to come argue against a couple hundred years of case law. Try it. Call these guys and offer your legal services since you know so much more about the federal system than anyone else. Where were you the last two hundred years when all of these cases were being argued? I'm sure the outcome of these cases would have been very different if only a brilliant legal mind such as yours was in the courtroom.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 29, 2007 5:51:32 GMT -5
No. It is not even in my jurisdiction if it violates a "federal law". So, there is no State law? They are being charged under a Federal law? Edit: "Sources told FOX News that the six suspects were involved in manufacturing homemade weapons and explosives, and that one of the suspects had tried to sell hand grenades to undercover federal agents. The group has also allegedly been involved in the sales and distribution of other types of explosive devices and weapons, but the nature of these has not yet been revealed."Today's arrest and search warrants have been significant due to the success of the combined efforts by ATF, as well as our state, local and federal partners," Cavanaugh said Thursday. "The communities in the area are safer, considering the fact that large quantities of live grenades and other explosive materials have been safely removed. Excellent investigative team work led us to this point in our investigation." Ok, so it appears to be Federal laws only...that being the case, would you, as a State Police or Local Police Officer, not sure what you are, assist in enforcing Federal law? Would you refuse? I would refuse. I spoke with my Captain before I left to assist in the Katrina effort . I heard about the gun confiscations in New Orleans and told him I swore to uphold and defend the constitution and could not participate in any of that and he told me that officers from our department were not going to be involved in any thing like that. I was ready to refuse then and Lord willing hopefully I'll have the courage to refuse again in the future if the occasion arises.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on Apr 29, 2007 5:56:47 GMT -5
they did NOT conduct business with any foregin nation or any state. Evidently, I've spent a lot more time dealing with the federal court system that you (go figure). If you're such a hotshot attorney, go take these guys' cases! I'm sure that the prosecution would love for an amateur bowler to come argue against a couple hundred years of case law. Try it. Call these guys and offer your legal services since you know so much more about the federal system than anyone else. Where were you the last two hundred years when all of these cases were being argued? I'm sure the outcome of these cases would have been very different if only a brilliant legal mind such as yours was in the courtroom. Brandon there could not have been "a couple of hundred" or "two hundred years" of case law with firearms considering the main machine gun laws were enacted in 1934 and 1986. Be more exact in your math if you want to mock or ridicule people.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 29, 2007 10:23:27 GMT -5
Be more exact in your math if you want to mock or ridicule people. What is your "math" regarding the age of the Constitution? Billt was referring to Congress' power to regulate commerce. You really showed me this time, eh?
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 29, 2007 10:37:38 GMT -5
and those court rulings are NOT 200 years old....i learned long ago arguing with DRUNKS gets one nowhere.....brandon made himself into a JOKE long ago...i enjoy his lame insults acutally!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 29, 2007 11:51:19 GMT -5
fully aware that the SC has made those rulings and they are the way it stands today...and just as aware that IF the FF meant ALL commerce they would have said "all commerce", they CLEARLY defined the commerce they MEANT in the wording. commerce between the STATES as entities with the other states and foregin nations. the words "interstate commerce" are NOT IN THAT CLAUSE the word "interstate" is NOT in that clause. bill- Exactly so. And thus the need to appoint constructionist jurists to SCOTUS and not activists. Or, another reason to elect Republican Presidents and not Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Apr 29, 2007 12:06:39 GMT -5
billt wrote: personal use is NOT "engaging in the business of". you CAN brew your own beer for your own comsumption. you can practice medicine on yourself. brandon responds: Perhaps you could be these guys' attorney and win. But I'd bet that even with a professional attorney, they're gonna lose that one. You are probably right, brandon. I hear it's hard to win against the government -- even when they're wrong.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 29, 2007 14:46:13 GMT -5
and those court rulings are NOT 200 years old....i learned long ago arguing with DRUNKS gets one nowhere.....brandon made himself into a JOKE long ago...i enjoy his lame insults acutally! You posts have gotten ridiculous enough that you insult yourself. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): ''What is this power? It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution . . . If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of congress, though lim ited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, is vested in congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the constitution of the United States.''You gonna keeping making up stuff about the law that you pull out of your ass, or can you actually back up an argument with a rational thought? And how is it that a welfare recipient thinks himself to be such an authority on the law?
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 29, 2007 15:47:34 GMT -5
i do NOT get one penny of welfare....and you remain an ignorant JERK.
the LIMITATIONS are CLEAR...congress's power is limited to the STATES in their dealing with each other and foreign nations!
"and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution "
that "opinion" above is silly on its face, it claims that because the word "regulate" is used that by itself gives congress UNLIMITED power to make laws about all aspects of commerce.....it DOES then admit that an exception to those powers are LIMITS placed by the constitution, it then mentions them
"the power over commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,"....congress was given the power over the states with foregin nations and with each other, NOT the private commerce of the citizens!
i understand the previous rulings say this isnt so but the ENGLISH words used in the constituion indeed back MY position.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Apr 29, 2007 16:43:47 GMT -5
i understand the previous rulings say this isnt so but the ENGLISH words used in the constituion indeed back MY position. Ok then, as I said earlier why not take these guys' cases and get a couple of hundred years of case law overturned? That is, if you're not opposed to the idea of having a job.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 29, 2007 17:57:44 GMT -5
Sayeth Wikipedia: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, empowers the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." A bit more research found me the name of the SCOTUS case that enabled Congress to expand the Commerce Clause to cover not only INTERstate commerce but INTRAstate as well: Wickard v. Filburn (1942) Not to bore you with the details, but the end result of the decision was that commerce that occurs wholly within a single state affects commerce between the states simply because it has no direct effect upon commerce between states. Tlak about your tortured legal rulings...and this one doesn't even go into "emunations" or "penumbras" at all... Again, sayeth Wikipedia: In 1941 the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated the production of goods shipped across state lines. In Wickard v. Filburn, (1942) the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act, stating that the act of growing wheat on one's own land, for one's own consumption, affected interstate commerce, and therefore under the Commerce Clause was subject to federal regulation. It is interesting to note that SCOTUS had declared some parts of FDR's "New Deal" to be unconstitutional, which resulted in FDR planning to "pack the Court" with more tractible Justices- one for each extant Justice over 70, supposedly to help the elderly (and Constructionist) Justices with their caseloads. Even though this court-packing scheme was rejected, the threat was enough to compel two justices (Roberts and Hughes) to switch sides and rubber-stamp att of FDR's proposals. In terms of present-day context, this only heightens the cruciality of electing true Conservative Republicans- not what we, by and large, have now- to the Presidency so that they can appoint justices who interpret, rather than invent, law.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on May 1, 2007 12:33:31 GMT -5
Hmm...might be some more weapons...
Stay tuned...
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 1, 2007 21:50:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 1, 2007 22:05:44 GMT -5
Boy, I would guess that might get some national news.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 1, 2007 22:32:03 GMT -5
Just a good 'o' boys.....never meanin no harm.....errrrrrrrrk. (*record player needle scratching to a halt.)
No needs to worry about us six pack-o- losers down in da holler...these there grenades and IEDs and such are just to protekt us from da guvernment.
Can't wait to hear the defenders of these pot smokin wackos on the forum now.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 2, 2007 5:13:06 GMT -5
The initial press release stated that there were no plots discovered. Very fishy crap seems to be going on. I heard from one of my Lts that the grenades were still inert. FREE THE FREE MILITIA!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 2, 2007 5:13:41 GMT -5
MEXICANS BEWARE!
I have enough bottle rockets and roman candles to chase their sorry butts back across the border. If they come back I'm going to have to break out the sparklers and m-80s.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 2, 2007 9:07:12 GMT -5
Can't wait to hear the defenders of these pot smokin wackos on the forum now. But you knew they would! The latest, you'll notice, is that the ATF is now fabricating stories about the case.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 2, 2007 9:15:18 GMT -5
I don't believe the feds accusation regarding a planned attack on Mexicans. It's just something to say to justify the raid and seizure of property.
Maybe these guys didn't like Mexicans. Neighbors said they didn't like government. But I do not believe they were planning an attack.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 2, 2007 9:34:52 GMT -5
From an older article, prior to this new revelation, that really isn't a surprise. "Joanne Gunnin, who owns the property, said that Dillard was known for trying to recruit neighbors to join his militia, and that he expressed hatred for the government and illegal immigrants. "He told a 16-year-old boy that he had to make up his mind which side he was going to be on, Americans or Mexicans," Gunnin said." www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/26/weapons.raids.ap/index.html?eref=rss_usSo far we know of circumstantial evidence, statements by neighbors and the fact that they did have the weapons. These guys were video and audio recorded by the agent that infiltrated their "group", so that will probably come out. At this point, there is no evidence that points to them not having a plan to attack Mexicans.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 2, 2007 9:40:44 GMT -5
phinehas: At this point, there is no evidence that points to them not having a plan to attack Mexicans. What?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 2, 2007 9:46:51 GMT -5
Let's see.
What is more credible?
A federal agent infiltrates a group that is stockpiling IEDs, grenades and has at least one rocket launcher along with guns and enough ammo to fill a truck. This agent, while investigating this group states that the group had a plan to attack Mexicans in Alabama and neighbors have reported at least one of them men talking in a, "it's Americans or Mexicans" context. The federal agent is telling the truth along with the neighbors.
or
These guys were minding their own buisness and this was a harmless endeavor to protect themselves, if needed at a future date, from the government.
So, why they are innocent until proven guilty....I don't think a reasonable person would be quickly jumping on their bandwagon, given what is known. You have to want to believe these guys are innocent to do that.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 2, 2007 9:57:00 GMT -5
Why is this "Attack on Mexicans" story just coming out? Last week, when they were arrested, reports said "no plots discovered."
If they were aware of such a planned attack when these guys were arrested, that would have been the headline.
It seems the "planned attack" was not the reason for the arrests. But, at this point, it helps build the agents case.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 2, 2007 10:05:27 GMT -5
So, you are siding with these guys as being credible and the federal agent as lying because the feds didn't reveal this information yet. The judge didn't post them bond...so I guess the judge has been hoodwinked as well.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 2, 2007 10:07:29 GMT -5
"It seems the "planned attack" was not the reason for the arrests. But, at this point, it helps build the agents case."
I don't think it was ONE reason why they shut these guys down. If the feds allow types like this to go unhampered, will YOU be screaming about conspiracy stories and incompetence when another Oklahoma City occurs?
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 2, 2007 11:06:39 GMT -5
I think evidence needs to be strong/solid. Americans should be able to live as they want as long as not causing harm to others. There is a fine line here. If it is known (solid evidence) that someone intends to cause harm, then they should be apprehended.
If the way a person chooses to live is different from the mainstream, it's easy to say, "That's weird... and what if..." I just don't want these people rounded up and taken away because of what someone thinks might happen. Also, I am fearful for those who are anti-government gun owners. I do not want agents creating reasons to get them.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 2, 2007 11:18:45 GMT -5
is the act of saying, "i dont think these illegals should be here". a crime? is that the beginning of a plot to get rid of the illegals? why is our government spending money time and resources on watching our citizens and doing NOTHING about us being invaded? whose side is the government on please, the citizens that love this nation and want to see freedom preserved for future generations, OR the illegals that are taking jobs, breaking our traffic laws, harming others with their cars, and changiong the USA in very profound ways? is the problem citizens OR the illegal invaders?
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on May 2, 2007 12:00:49 GMT -5
I think evidence needs to be strong/solid. Americans should be able to live as they want as long as not causing harm to others. There is a fine line here. If it is known (solid evidence) that someone intends to cause harm, then they should be apprehended. If the way a person chooses to live is different from the mainstream, it's easy to say, "That's weird... and what if..." I just don't want these people rounded up and taken away because of what someone thinks might happen. Also, I am fearful for those who are anti-government gun owners. I do not want agents creating reasons to get them. But if the people who were rounded up are in possession of arms that are now and have been illegal, then the agents aren't creating reasons to "get them". The issue in this case is that these citizens were arrested because they were found to be in possession of materials that are illegal. You can't blame law enforcement for enforcing the laws (but I can understand the frustration when it appears that they enforce only some of the laws against some of the people). For those who feel strongly that the laws regarding improvised (homemade) explosives & stockpiled weapons should be eradicated, then why not petition your legislatures to change the existing laws? If you feel that American citizens should have the right to manufacture their own chemical weapons, explosives, etc., then do something to get a local or national discussion going. Have a town hall meeting, maybe. Perhaps your neighbors feel the same way as you do and would welcome a militia group like the one whose members were arrested. It'd be a start at least.
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on May 2, 2007 12:03:26 GMT -5
is the act of saying, "i dont think these illegals should be here". a crime? is that the beginning of a plot to get rid of the illegals? whose side is the government on please, the citizens that love this nation and want to see freedom preserved for future generations, OR the illegals that are taking jobs, breaking our traffic laws, harming others with their cars, and changiong the USA in very profound ways? is the problem citizens OR the illegal invaders? If me or my family are going to be killed by drunk drivers, then they're going to be American drunk drivers, by God.
|
|