Ravi, Well put. My knee jerk reaction to all liberal Democrats is that they are all either looking for a free lunch or attempting to take control of the people by trying to intice them into taking one from the government funded by our money/productivity.

Has anyone read the article "Gun Control" to learn that federal gun control does not, in fact or in law, apply in any one of the 50 Union States? Cheers.

Bryce, excellent point. As someone who has been voting Democrat since I was old enough to vote (just over 10 years), I have been trying to convince all of these people in the party who call themselves Liberals (like my own brother), that federalism, the 10th Amendment, and States' rights in general, actually benefit social liberals as much as they benefit conservatives and libertarians. They get so angry when you tell them this.

We're a federation of sovereign States, not a singular unitary nation-state, as so many of them seem to believe. Our Founders understood that a "one size fits all" centralized government is incompatible with liberty, just as democracy is. So they gave us a republic of States, united by a basic set of principles, but self-governed by their own unique people. This system of government would ensure that liberal States (like CA) and conservative States (like GA) would not have to live under laws which they felt were oppressive and against their own values.

2010 might be the first time I refuse to back any Dems. This party has abandoned the Constitution and has become hostile to liberty.

Know the truth! Read "Gun control" at poorclydesalmanac.info.

Gary Marbut is an excellent example of the unifying nature of our Tenth Amendment movement- a gun rights activist (typically a right wing issue) who also supports medical marijuana legalization (typically a leftist position).

Thanks again to all of you for more great feedback on our second podcast! We're refining our format and your comments make it a better show.

Look for a very distinguished guest in next weeks installment!

B

(Formerly posted as "Trouble". New board setup made me change.)

Good going on the interview Michael! There's a real undercurrent on this and a number of other issues. One congressman (I forget who) actually quoted the Powerline blog today on Fox regarding the Healthcare bill.

When Congress starts reading the blogs maybe they'll begin to get a clue. It would be quite nice if the real meaning behind the Commerce Clause was restored to its rightful place.

Why goto Fed courts...to hell with them...pass your state laws and enforce them....seems simple to me..
If the feds dont like it let them take the state to court

...But this whole thing is founded on the idea that in order for the federal government to secure to itself such exclusive authority, all it needs to do is to "occupy the field," and "intend a complete ouster." If this is true, then the restrictions placed upon the federal government in the federal constitution mean absolutely nothing. And by extension, our state constitutions which affirm the constitution's principles mean absolutely nothing. The federal government just does what it wants to do, whenever the impulse strikes it (on immigration and any number of issues), and our state constitutions are meant to affirm its power to do so.

Rest assured, this immigration fight is a tenth amendment fight all the way.

Nonetheless, many of our own legislators (and our governor) were dragged kicking and screaming, in a manner of speaking, to take the position they ultimately took on immigration, which is this -- the State of Oklahoma has a duty to protect its own citizens against an invasion of foreigners. They did so because the federal government, in their opinion, had abdicated its authority in the matter. While this is true insofar as the federal government has authority over the immigration issue, the understanding they lack is, as I said above, it doesn't have exclusive authority over immigration.

Michael,

My idea of "reforming" America involves the very tedious process of tracing the harvest we're bearing now back to the seeds that produced it. On the immigration question, for example, the popular idea that "immigration is a federal issue exclusive to the federal government" is a false concept and an untenable position to take. It is another one of those "when you repeat something often enough people begin to believe it" absurdities. The constitution nowhere stipulates that the federal government have exclusive authority over immigration. It merely provides that the federal government establish a "uniform rule of naturalization," which is a lot different than exclusive authority over immigration. No; this immigration issue, like so many others, was originally left to the states under the ninth and tenth amendments.

...Of course, the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has since "ruled" that certain provisions in the law (sections 7 and 9 to be exact) probably violate federal law, and has held those provisions in suspension ever since. Incidentally, the provisions which give the law real teeth. Hmm.

But anyway, Terrill is an Oklahoma legislator who has enough backbone to defend his constituents against federal invasion of their constitutional (and natural) rights. He's also advised, by invitation, other State Congresses on how to write their own immigration laws.

Great interview - definitely excited to hear more about this soon!