What part of Shall Not Infringe don’t they understand?

This is a no-win situation for the federales since either way and no matter what happens…the states will redeclare and reassert Individual Sovereignty sooner or later…before official bankruptcy or after!

Surely there are millions across the globe that understand and support Montana Sovereignty just the same as they respect Saudia Arabia Sovereignty?

Perhaps Freedom Fighters from across the globe will be called by conscience to stand with Montanians for surely if we all refuse to stand for our neighbors…we’ll be next!

Hey, don’t jackboot the rooster for sounding the Sons of Liberty Rising!

Sincerely,
John and Dagny Galt
Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)

.

Clarence Thomas called for the court to screw substancial effects test and revert to the way it was originally intended for in United States v Lopez.

Antonin Scalia has changed his ways since raich and Concurred in Gonzales v cahart upholding partial birth abortion ban act by questioning congress’s power to regulate such.

Samuel alito dissented upholding homemade banned SMG’s by saying lopez should extend to barring congress from making possessionary offenses under comerce clause(US v Rybar, 3rd circuit 1997).

John Roberts hasn’t make any rulings or dissents in federalism yet but he believes it’s immoral and unconstitutional for congress to solve ordinary social ills using the commerce clause saying that new york aint the same as minnesota and there is not good idea clause.

Anthony Kennedy I believe is likely to look back to his concurrence in United states v lopez and realize the commerce clause gives congress no ordinary direct control of the economy or other social issues. I hope Sotomayor will favor states rights with her being a centerist like Potter Stewart.

I’m gonna scream if they say too bad and go ask congress becuase they didn’t say to bad to a couple a fags in texas who were arrested for having butt sex but were rewarded sympothy. The nd and 10th amendments need more libertarian leaning interpretations and those have been ignored for too long yet they have recognized abortion and privacy as fundamential rights in the past. It is a restriction onstates to prevent them from regulating commerce with other states and for congress to give full faith and credit to free trade.

“When the general government encroaches upon the rights of the State, is it a safe principle to admit that a portion of the encroaching power shall have the right to determine finally whether an encroachment has been made or not? In fact, most of the encroachments made by the general government flow through the Supreme Court itself, the very tribunal which claims to be the final arbiter of all such disputes. What chance for justice have the States when the usurpers of their rights are made their judges? Just as much as individuals when judged by their oppressors. It is therefore believed to be the right, as it may hereafter become the duty of the State governments, to protect themselves from encroachments, and their citizens from oppression, by refusing obedience to the unconstitutional mandates of the federal judges.”
CITED FROM: Thomas E. Woods, Jr. “The States’ Rights Tradition Nobody Knows.” LewRockwell.com. June 29, 2005. http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods44.html

Anyway, I will e-mail you at the Montana Shooting Sports Association with a list of people and groups that I suggest you ask for amicus briefs.