Quote:
|
I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the author
|
Sorry, that's what happens when I start posting before coffee...
Quote:
|
So James Maddison expressed an opinion has to the definition of 'general welfare' well woppee doo ... opinions, like mine, are like assholes, everyone has them. What matters is actually what is written and the consensus of legal opinion on what those words mean.
|
But don't you think the opinion of one of the men who helped write the document in the first place carries a *little* more weight as to what that document means?
As you pointed out, the "provide for the general welfare" clause keeps getting "clarified" -- unfortunately, the people doing the clarifying seem to be figuring out new ways to increase government authority far beyond what the original authors intended. It's been going on for w-a-y too long for any one person to beat it in court.
Maybe something like the new Montana
Firearms Freedom Act will be a tiny starting point in pushing back. The Montana state government passed legislation in April 09 stating that firearms, ammunition, & accessories manufactured within the state, sold within the state, used within the state, and never taken out of the state, are not subject to federal regulation because the federal gun laws are based on the "interstate commerce" clause, but there hasn't been any interstate commerce.