I'm not arguing for or against the bill without further information either. I simply grabbed the side that says just because of rampant abuse doesn't make it right. I agree that two Conservative justices in SCOTUS (and hopefully three soon) might make a difference.The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:15 pmJust to be clear, I am NOT arguing against this bill. ALL I am doing is pointing out that it is vulnerable to the same kind of criticisms from the left that the right uses against sanctuary city/state immigration laws. There have been times in our history when it was the wrong thing to do, but as a general thing, I tend to favor states telling the fed gov’t where/when to step off.chasfm11 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:08 pm OK TAM. I'll jump into the devil's advocate role.
1. What part of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to regulate anything built and used in Texas?. I get it that power has been usurped in situations like the farmer growing crops for his own use being declared interstate commerce. That was a real stretch and should have been slapped down. Like "shall not be infringed", "interstate" has been twisted to mean things that it shouldn't.
2. I think that I understand the interpretation of supremacy clause and that to overturn a Federal law, a State should have to take the Feds to court over it, not try to nullify it with their own laws. But if the Federal law is outside of its granted powers, the State should win, based on the 10th Amendment.
My $.02.
To answer your question, Congress has used the commerce clause to abuse all kinds of things. They’re not about to stop either. You’re right. A federal attempt to regulate manufacturing that never leaves the sate is bunk. But they do it anyway, and I predict that if this law is challenged, it will be done either under the Commerce Clause, or by somehow extending ATF’s mandate into this area.
The flip side of that is that we’ve gotten two new conservative justices, and might get another one if RBG steps down. So if the issue ever get’s to SCOTUS, the ruling on the topic may well go our way. We’ll see.
Regarding sanctuary cities, etc., the Federal government is clearly given that Constitutional responsibility. I view the argument for allowing States that kind of power on this topic as further erosion of the Constitution but am not surprised, given who is doing it. I think there could be a argument for consistency on the Constitution by the GOP if they would stop eroding it, too.