Sometimes, You Gotta Admit When You Are Wrong

A good "blogosphere buddy" of mine, Zen (whom I am well-acquainted with through the old Daily Whackjob blog), and I have been battling back and forth over the recent Supreme Court ruling on the rights of corporations and unions when it comes to campaign financing and advertising.

While I still stand that CEOs and the like should not be restricted because of their status and resources, I was convinced by a few of Zen's other points that this was a bad ruling. He brought these two issues to my attention...

- Apparently, this ruling is now putting restrictions placed by the states at risk (federal rulings are supposed to supercede state laws unless deemed unconstitutional). Obviously, it would make sense that nationwide elections, such as the presidential elections, should be federally ruled and regulated from a financing perspective. However, states should be able to decide how their statewide elections are financed and regulated. This ruling effectively throws many state laws and restrictions out the door. This is a case where the federal government needs to step back and step out of the affairs of the individual states.

- The second, and more dangerous issue (in my opinion), is the fact that global corporations now can influence our elections. This means that corporations in foreign lands can influence our elections, and this also opens an avenue for foreign nations themselves to have direct influence. I'm surprised that some on the left ("we are part of a global community") don't see this as a good thing....ok, I kid, I kid. In all seriousness, this is a dangerous precedent to set and it actually makes me quite a bit nervous.

So kudos to Zen for turning me around on this issue. While he and I will probably have several more arguments to have on different points...I can at least admit where I may have been blind to certain things.

I do agree with him on another point...this ruling has opened up a Pandora's Box of potential problems going forward.

Even the States

Legislatures in all 50 states plus U.S. territories passed a combined 40,697 laws in 2009. Laws that includes regulations on smoking, trans fats, seatbelts, tanning beds...just more expansion of the nanny state.

Granted, I prefer to see this on a state level than on a national level (I do think federalism is a good thing)...but really, does government on any level have the right to regulate some of the things that it does? Not in this man's opinion.

(h/t FTL)

New Hampshire Utilizing the 10th Amendment to Protect the 2nd Amendment

It appears that New Hampshire legislators are pushing a bill through their state legislature that will nullify federal gun laws AND make it a felony for federal agents to deny citizens of New Hampshire their 2nd Amendment rights. The House bill (HB1285) would "exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured in New Hampshire from federal law and regulation.”

This falls under "intrastate commerce", which is NOT regulated by the federal government. In addition, the bill lays out the following penalties for those who deny NH residents their rights here...

For state agents: "Any public servant of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor."

Gets even worse if you are a federal agent of any kind...

"Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony."

This is how you use the constitution to turn back federal encroachment upon the rights of the of the states. Interestingly, this falls in line with the Virginia Resolution of 1798, where James Madison asserted that states have the right to resist unconstitutional acts by the federal government, and are supposed to be the barrier between the encroachments of the federal government and the people of the state.

Simply beautiful!

(h/t Free Talk Live)