Guest - the amount of constitutional questions in your comment is far too much to address in a comment. I suggest you read more on this subject from Professor Kurt Lash, one of the nation\'s leading constitutional scholars, and an expert on the 9th amendment.

You can start with:

a) his new book - The Lost History of the Ninth Amendment
b) his seminal research publication - \"The Inescapable Federalism of the Ninth Amendment,\" 93 Iowa Law Review 801(2008)

So - if a state passes a non-binding resolution like this one...one that affirms their support for the constitution, you propose to try to starve the people who live there? And, where do you think the federal government has the authority to BAN the sales of food across state lines?

Sounds to me like you must have been a big supporter of the Bush administration.

Thanks for the feedback, Dwight! Drop us a line anytime...

Well-said - it's just another big government program outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. And - as usual, what they promise never happens.

Thanks for stopping by, Bill! Here's to more states catching on to this movement and considering sovereignty over such policy!

Excellent point, Bill! Mises.org is one of my daily reads - 2nd only to LewRockwell.com.

Wait - so you have no issue with the fact that he does not even know such a basic thing - the difference between the Declaration and the Constitution? I find that to be HUGE - and do expect that if it were a different political thug, like Pelosi, doing the same thing people like yourself would be screaming about what an idiot she is.

Great job running CA-TAC, Bryce! Looking forward to seeing you do more presentations in the near future!

Curious - also what do you mean by a state "not liking interstate commerce" or forcing "100% taxation" through nullification. What are you envisioning? Maybe I can offer some insight or point you in the right direction on this whole nullification issue in regards to this scenario you're concerned about...

First of all, the incorporation doctrine is a fraud, is historically inaccurate, and is one of the greatest destroyers of the federalism and local republican self-government that the founders gave us in the constitution. It's given us rule by judges - judges that create or destroy rights on little more than a whim - and what people need to do is start focusing on expanding liberty in their own areas instead of trying to force their way on the entire country. But we could talk about that in other threads if you really wanted to discuss it in detail.

So explain, because I don't get it - if a state resists unconstitutional federal laws and expands liberty - you think it's a bad thing? Or do you prefer the status quo - waiting for federal politicians to follow the constitution - begging them to follow the constitution. Waiting for federal judges to give us "permission" to exercise our rights?

The reality is this - sooner or later, the American people are going to have to once again learn how to exercise their rights even if the federal politicians and federal judges don't want us to. That's how freedom lives...