By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The federal government is claiming in court documents demanding the dismissal of a gun-law challenge in Montana the authority to regulate in-state commerce under the Constitution’s Commerce clause.

But the plaintiff in the case says the court needs to review that provision in its amended form – since the 10th Amendment, adopted after the Commerce Clause, can be viewed as modifying the Constitution’s provisions regarding the regulation of commerce, specifically granting additional authority to states.

The argument is arising in a lawsuit filed in Montana against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and others. The complaint seeks a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana’s management of its own firearms within state boundaries.

State Sovereignty (Reaffirm The 10th Amendment)
**S424 State Sovereignty passed in the Senate, however an amendment was added with the intention to reaffirm the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution – Right to bear arms. Senator Grooms is questioning the wording as not being broad enough to protect the private citizen. He is consulting the NRA (National Rifle Association) lawyers for their advice.

The bill is being forwarded to the House, if approved it becomes law, if not it goes to a joint session and an agreement is worked out.

COLUMBIA – Memo to Congress: South Carolina affirms its sovereignty under the 9th and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Ditto for the Second and 14th amendments. And when it comes to the proposed federal health care reform, thanks, but no thanks. That’s the message the state Senate delivered on Tuesday, bringing an end to a fight that began last February. The brawl ended with a 31-11 vote – with all of the votes in opposition coming from Democrats. Sen. Glenn Reese, D-Boiling Springs, broke rank and voted for the measure. The resolution does not carry the weight of law, but informs Congress of the state’s position.

The landmark judgment could force a Europe-wide review of the use of religious symbols in state-run schools. A panel of seven judges in Strasbourg said the display of Christian crosses, which is common but not mandatory in Italian schools, violated the principle of secular education and might be “disturbing” for children from other faiths. It upheld a complaint filed by Soile Lautsi, a Finnish woman with Italian citizenship, who complained that her children had to attend a state school in northern Italy which had crucifixes in every classroom.

and

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Heavily Catholic Poland has joined the Vatican in criticizing a European court ruling against the display of crucifixes in Italian schools.President Lech Kaczynski said his country will never agree to remove crosses from its schools.

And my “answer” was this…..

Isn’t amazing how “all-seeing” our founding fathers were, and how that, over time, such people seem not to exist today … or at least their comprehension of historical precedent doesn’t? “State Sovereignty” (10th Amendment) was left out of the Euro Constitution. Just a minor detail … but it is a wide open door to allowing the “central government” to meddle in your “local” affairs. I would have thought an Italian might have been worried about an agnostic from Belgium meddling with local religious beliefs. But alas, nobody was watching closely enough. This was carefully placed in our Constitution so people in one state didn’t have to worship as people did in other states … the states decided. Ironic that this case is about religion … a huge arrow pointing at our own Constitution as a reminder to us of how it protects us if we (1)understand it and (2) defend it. If they ever have a new “constitutional convention” somebody should send them a copy of the Federalist Papers.

But on the other hand, we have State Sovereignty in our Constitution, yet we still cannot put up a nativity scene without out a complaint from the agnostics. (I think there should be a complaint if it is NOT present … same law, same rights). Under the false guise of separation of Church and State. So even if you have such a jewel in your Constitution, it only has value if you (1) understand the value and (2) are willing to protect it.

Last week I asked a person if they knew what the 10th amendment was … their answer was not only shocking, it was a sign of the times … “Its part of the Lord’s Prayer, isn’t it?” (And this person was allowed to vote in the last election! … and got it wrong … any wonder?).

I agree with much of what you say about states rights. However…let’s talk about schools and roads for a minutes.

If you are a school and you accept federal money, I believe the feds have the right to add strings. You don’t want the strings, don’t take the money.

Same for cell phones on interstate highways – you don’t like the rules, don’t take the cash.

When states decide that they’re tired of dealing with federal mandates that exist only because they’re accepting the money, then they can do whatever they wish.