Selected Laws

Posts Tagged ‘Going’

Introduction – A number of states have passed states right legislation affirming the rights that the federal government has and those that the states have according to the constitution. The federal government has been tremendously over stepping their constitutional boundaries for many years. The states are scared. The last infringement on states rights is a declaration of martial law. If there is ever such a declaration of martial law the states government will become suspended. The chances of martial law ever being repealed once in effect are about as good as the patriot act ever being repealed. None in other words.

The states are not clean. They are operating illegally at times themselves. They practice stupid high tax practices. They eliminate productive jobs in favor of non-productive jobs (government). Their politicians run and get elected on handout tickets that destroy any country. The states are afraid of being done away with altogether through the fed invoking martial law thus they are trying to do something about it.

Analysis – First off we always need to consider the concept of the states setting the people up. They pass these states rights laws and do nothing other than that. This is where we are right now. Then the Fed takes the states to their own federal courts. We can expect a three-year wait. Then who knows what the federal courts do? Planning on the federal courts protecting the rights of the states when they get a paycheck from the federal government is of course a stretch at best. So this could be a ruse to get the people to think all will be well just sit back and wait a few years for the courts to decide.

Then a few years later the fed has tightened its grip to such an extent the cases never get heard and well you know the rest. I say this based on the new Montana Gun Law. I have no idea why Montana wants to take the fed to task in the federal courts. This is almost as silly as asking the federal government for the right to secede. They should start building and selling guns. Then if the fed steps in arrest the agents and the judge who issued the warrant and charge them under Montana law. No federal agent has the right to go around breaking state laws or illegally enforcing federal laws. This would get things decided by the federal courts fast, don’t you think. Maybe three days instead of three years. The way this is playing is very suspicious.

The other side of the coin is that we are in uncharted water here and it may be the states really do not know what to do and they are trying take a safe position. This is typical for a government. Another position is the states are just trying to scare the federal government into a restoration of a constitutional government. Good luck with that. So be careful before you run around thinking oh boy we are getting this mess fixed up with states rights legislation. You may be on the way to it but it also maybe a ruse. At this point I am think it is a ruse or a warning shot across the bow of the fed which they will tend to ignore. My gosh they are ignoring a President without a birth certificate, this is small compared to that.

Implications of States Rights – We are seeing states saying they have the right to sell guns inside their state with no federal controls or reportage. I think they do have this right. The argument is the fed has only the right to control interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce. The constitution grants no specific rights to the fed to control guns.

There was similar case in the federal courts. A guy was growing wheat or corn. He was operating contrary to some federal law about growing too much wheat. He went to court and argued he was only growing for his own use, not selling it and certainly not selling it across state lines thus immune from the fed. The fed court said that his growing of the crop could affect supply and demand, prices etc in a way that would affect markets outside of his state. He lost. The ruling coming from a federal court was as absurd as it could be. No country can survive when courts rule this way, none.

And these people are waiting for the same federal courts to rule on the states rights to make guns and not sell across state lines. Want the ruling most probable to come down, here we go. Dear Montana you have no way to control the guns leaving the state thus it needs to be under federal control lest you become complicit in violating the gun laws in numerous states and of course the federal laws these states have agreed to abide by. You will also be affecting interstate markets for gun sales, production, supply, demand, prices etc. You also will be allowing people to buy guns who may not clear the federal background check thus equipping undesirables with firearms, which can be moved out of the state. Got the idea yet. Do you think the fed will say Oh yeah well it is the second amendment that we cannot infringe. Come on look how much infringement they have come up with already. Does this emphatically mean these states are operating in a ruse? No. They can be innocent enough and afraid of getting prosecuted for conspiracy to violate federal gun control laws by passing such a law so they timidly want to try a federal court ruling. It scares the fed, it gets votes and it does nothing, which is the all time favorite position of politicians.

In any event when you see the state saying they are going to challenge the fed in a federal court, come on wake up and get real. This is a dead end. If the states had any guts and took action after passing these laws it would be a different thing. Expect the fed to ignore these things and the federal courts to set them aside and life goes on while the police state grows against the constitution. Having the federal court rule on a case where the fed is a defendant is what is called a “conflict of interest”. Sure it is done everyday but that does not stop it from being a conflict of interest. A fair system would appoint a lawyer or group of lawyers specially qualified to hear the case. Those judging the case would need to not be employed by the defendant to have anything resembling a fair system especially when you are trying to prove the fed is overstepping its bounds.

Where It All Hits the Fan – The debt to the Federal Reserve. Numerous states are passing laws calling for the states to pay their debts in gold or silver. They are also saying the people can bank in gold and silver. So now we will need to get banks in these states out of the federal system and into a state only system. Goodbye to the FDIC.

Eventually they will say no to the Federal Reserve debt. First the guns. Next the gold and silver honest constitutional money. Then dismiss the federal debt as a Ponzi scheme, illegal etc. Now what. The fed then gets popular support from all their tax consumers by telling them that say Montana is avoiding its obligation to the taxes that enable you to stay home and live in a nice house and get free medical because you are on disability since you are a crazy drug addict, or it will cause you to lose your cushy job for ,000 in some idiotic government agency pushing papers. Now the fed can stir the pot for support from their tax consuming dependents that just want all the hard working people to go on and keep supporting them until they are bankrupt (like today).

These tax consumers are of course not going to do anything except complain or maybe burn their own cities in a drunken outrage. But they would support a military action on the part of the fed to sanction these states. See the problem. States rights eventually culminate with either listening to the federal courts or just laughing at them and going to secession, which is a state legislature event independent of any federal court. Then assumptively once one state has the guts to do it, several follow suit and join into a new nation free of tax consumers. The newly formed governments would be probably 20% of what you see now. The amount of crimes for which one goes to jail would probably be 25 or less.

The economies would be booming since there would be no partnership with the Federal Reserve Bank. So we wait and watch very cautiously. Be careful not to be deceived and just trust these people in the state legislatures touting states rights. They have done nothing except pass legislation, which they take zero action on. Numerous states have passed states right bills into law. The fed still abuses its authority and these states do nothing. Be careful not to be deceived. We hope it is real but we are losing confidence daily.

-Aurelia Masterson, www.panamalaw.org

Related Martial Law Articles

children can both rewarding and challenging. It can be very worthwhile to watch your children grow and develop throughout their lifetime. It can be very challenging, but to them to see through this development.
Raising children can be very expensive, and if you want to be supported by a hearing like, you might hire a family lawyer to ensure that the result is as good as possible for you and your children. Support hearings are usually held to determine how much a noncustodial parent obligated to have to pay each month to the welfare of their children to be sustainable.
If you are the parent that the payments received, the support is, you probably want to ensure that the final decision of the court to pay on how much the noncustodial parent is required to will be enough to have to cover costs in the upbringing of children. A family lawyer can help a lot in this situation because they can help ensure that all costs of education of the children during the hearing and also that the final decision of the court is in the best interest of you and your children.
If you are that requires the parent to support the payments, a family lawyer can do is be a great help during the hearing. Although you probably want as much money as they can provide for the welfare of your children, you probably do not want the amount you are paid every month too high. A lawyer can help correctly describe your ability to make payments and also how much you pay each month realistic.
Whether you are the parents of the payments, or the parent will receive the payments under the original court order is complete, you may have the option of requesting a change to the original support orders if your circumstances have changed. For example, if the parent and the payments you have recently lost a job or have suffered a pay cut, you might want to change the original court ruling request to reduce the amount of money to pay you. If you are the parent receiving the payments, you can apply for a change, if your child has special needs developed since the time of the original hearing. These special needs could benefit from medical care available. A family law attorney can be a great advantage for you, whether you receive the payments or the payments because they can help, you should check whether to apply the change and when the change order.
There are many situations in which legal professional can be a great help for you. When you go through a court hearing about your children, it can be a good idea, the possibility of a lawyer because they can help to ensure that the result of the hearing be on display in the best interest of you and your children.