Anti-federal bills move forward in Montana House

[Agent_Iron]

Legislators that want Liberty...that is novel! I think it is awsome, and I wish them well! Maybe I will reside there one day. I love the land of eternal wind.

 

[fjolnirsson]

Montana is starting to sound better and better as a retirement spot...

 

[munk]

The two states I've lived in and like the best are Wyoming and Montana.



munk

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Why in the heck is Montana not the LP "Free State Project" ???

 

[Jay Kominek]

Why in the heck is Montana not the LP "Free State Project" ???

Its my understanding that the first place votes were almost evenly split between Wyoming and New Hampshire, with those west of the Mississippi going for Wyoming, and those east going for New Hampshire. It just happened that there were more people east of the Mississippi.
Wyoming was probably winning over Montana because of the lack of personal income tax, and the smaller population.

 

[TallPine]

Why in the heck is Montana not the LP "Free State Project" ???

Good question, Ready

I think it might have something to do with the lack of employment opportunities for anyone moving into the state.

My wife and I did our own "Free State" research in 1996-97, and settled on Montana as a better place to live than Colorado ("Colo-fornia" ). Wyoming would have been a good choice too, but MT was farther from relatives

Personally, I think the FSP missed the boat ... they should have selected TWO states - one in the East and one in the West. They would have doubled the effect instead of halving it, because not too many folks are going to move cross-continent. There's just too much cultural and climatic difference.

 

[theCZ]

Montana is what Nevada would still be if it isn't growing so much. All things considered, I'll be moving back to Nevada after college graduation in May. I was suprised at the marijauana bill passing, but not too suprised about the cyanide leach mining getting turned down. Montana is a fairly poor state with two-thirds of this country's best national parks (Yosemite will always be number one with me!), and gets a lot of income from tourism, yet the debate over keeping a no-sales tax policy still goes on. I come from a state where we have a sales tax, but no income tax. This makes the best of tourist coming into the state, but takes a little burden off of the residents with no income tax. Why couldn't Montana do something like that?

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Wyoming makes sense too. I could picture moving to Wyoming or Montana, NOT the East Coast.

Way to go Montana if these bills move forward! It's actually great news that these things are even being considered by politicians.

Maybe the pendulum is swinging back. (Where's that "prayer" smilie?)

 

[HungSquirrel]

I wonder if Rice and Koopman also like to joust with windmills?

Oh, man! Priceless!

 

[TallPine]

I come from a state where we have a sales tax, but no income tax. This makes the best of tourist coming into the state, but takes a little burden off of the residents with no income tax. Why couldn't Montana do something like that?

The problem is making sure the income tax goes away when the sales tax comes in. Many people are afraid that we will just end up with both.

The other thing might be trying to snag some income taxes from a few very high profile residents - although I suppose they are not really residents for income tax purposes even though they own property here.


Oh, BTW - DMF, you obviously don't know anything about Montana

 

[publius]

Montana is in the 9th circuit, so I don't see the need for this law. A state law which defines the limits of federal power? Is that really a state job, in this context?

If the Stewart decision is overturned, what will be the legal effect of this state law? If the Supreme Court once again affirms the idea that the commerce clause can extend federal regulatory power to any item, whether or not it moved in interstate commerce, my bet is that this Montana law will not protect Montana residents who run afoul of federal gun laws.

Good to see them taking a poke at gun grabbers and federal overreach, but I think this one won't work.

 

[munk]

Resistance is never futile.





munk

 

[Sindawe]

Its my understanding that the first place votes were almost evenly split between Wyoming and New Hampshire, with those west of the Mississippi going for Wyoming, and those east going for New Hampshire. It just happened that there were more people east of the Mississippi. Wyoming was probably winning over Montana because of the lack of personal income tax, and the smaller population.

Correct, as well as "better" drug laws.* Funny thing about us freedom loving folk, we think freedom extends to issues that we don't participate in, not just our "sacred cows" like guns. I was a voting member of the FSP, and my choices were all west of the Mississippi, with Wyoming being my first choice. The idea has not died however, see this site. I'm still looking at Wyoming as relocation site.

Resistance is never futile.

"Better to die a free man on one's feet, than live on one's knees as a slave" eh? No argument from me.

* based on examination of state statues in the late 1990s.

 

[Libertyteeth]

Of course this bill is based on the Stewart decision out of the 9th circuit, but it is also based on claimed Montana state authority. Here is the wording from the bill, which has now passed the House 73 to 24 (including many Democratic votes) and awaits action in the Senate.

Libertyteeth

... NEW SECTION. Section 2. Legislative declaration of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7 6] is the following:

(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guarantee of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(3) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guarantee of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

(4) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana, and the right exists as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889. ...

 

[munk]

Thanks for printing that!

Fascinating; they've used the fact that upon admission to the Union specific contracts were agreed upon by both signatories, the meaning of which was clear.

What a great idea. So the Federal Govt cannot go back on its word, or break the contract.


munk

 

[Cortland]

What a great idea. So the Federal Govt cannot go back on its word, or break the contract.

Uhh, yeah. That's not exactly a new idea. Madison and Jefferson (who you just might call Constitutional experts) said the same thing 200 years ago: see The Kentucky Resolutions and the Virginia Resolution, written in protest of the Alien & Sedition Acts. The Montana legislation even uses the word "compact" in the same way that Jefferson did. Its inspiration is clear. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were passed by the legislatures of those states, and House Bill 366 really amounts to a modern-day "Montana Resolution."

 

[ak47nevada]

I'm already planning on purchasing 10 acres in SW Montana in the next year. If these laws get passed I plan on working there as well for the next twenty years.

Montana is starting to look like a strong bastion of freedom. This is exactly what we need today to resist the NWO/Globalist elite and their jackboot thug minions.

 

[Kamicosmos]

I have to admit, Montana is looking better as the years go by.

I've had a long standing Plan/Fantasy to move to Colorado. But, the Liberal Invasion is starting to make it not so attractive. So, I started looking into Wyoming. But, job market and population and standard of living seems rather depressed there. (I could be way wrong on that though) Now, Montana seems to be the most Freedom loving state, is about as pretty as CO and WY from what I've seen of the western parts of the states.

I like snow, but bitter deep freeze cold and no real summers though...I'm still thinking....

 

[Libertyteeth]

"I like snow, but bitter deep freeze cold and no real summers though...I'm still thinking...."

The mountain valleys in Western Montana actually have a fairly mild climate compared to other northern latitudes such as the Midwest or Northeast. For years, I tried to make it sound bad, to discourage people from moving in, but now that there is a freedom migration underway, I tell some people the rest of the story.

The mountain valleys are semiarid, so don't get a lot of snow, and the cold spells don't last long. The mountains shield Western Montana from a lot of the arctic weather that comes down centered on the Midwest. If you do move here, be aware that Montana has a lot of microclimates because the mountains introduce complexity. Some areas are windy, for instance, and some are not. Lower-elevation areas are considered the "banana belts". You have to check around.

The Summers are the nicest Summers in the lower 48!

Libertyteeth

http://freewest.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=242

 

[munk]

Uhh, yeah. That's not exactly a new idea. >>>>>>>>> Cortland

What's the, "Uhh, yeah." serve? What possible purpose could this phrase have?

I said it was a great idea- not a new idea. But obviously I'm not a lawyer nor up on Jurisprudence. I'm glad you are. People who are intelligent and informed have no need to advertise this at the expense of others. I realize this is tempest in a teapot, but it is important for one simple fact: there is a level of uncivility on the net in general, and sometimes even on the High Road, which we do not need to have.
Anyway, your post is informative, and I thank you for it.

I'm obviously naive- the logical rebuttal to the claim of contract would be that Montana signed on to a Democratic process, a Republic which changes.


munk

 

[Cortland]

What's the, "Uhh, yeah." serve? What possible purpose could this phrase have?

To make you angry, it would appear.

I'm obviously naive- the logical rebuttal to the claim of contract would be that Montana signed on to a Democratic process, a Republic which changes.

The problem is the change is one-sided. A single party can't unilaterally alter a two party contract, and that's what happens when the Federal Government "re-interprets" the Constitution. You can, of course, make the claim that Federal supremacy provided the implicit right of the Federal Government to make unilateral changes, but the wording of the Constitution makes that claim a real stretch.

 

[munk]

Naw; I'm not mad. If you'd wanted to, you reeeaaallllyyy could have laid it on, but you didn't.

So what will come of Montana's claim, then?
From another perspective- we broke a whole lot of treaties with ndns- why not now with this Montana view of the contract?




munk

 

[Cortland]

From another perspective- we broke a whole lot of treaties with ndns- why not now with this Montana view of the contract?

Well that's just defeatism. Sure there's the way things are and then there's the way things ought to be, but they need not always be different. If the Federal Government wasn't in the habit of breaking its promises/responsibilities/compacts/etc. we wouldn't be having this conversation.

When a citizen decides not to follow a law that he feels is unconstitutional, he usually gets thrown in jail. So what happens when a State government decides not to follow that same law? The presence of the interstate commerce issue (and the subsequent problem of the Feds jurisdiction) make this question sufficiently different from the nullification question of the mid 19th century that its answer just may surprise us all.

 

[munk]

You have me interested. You even give me a little hope. Life throws us surprises now and then. I'd love to be surprised by the Supreme Court. I've been living with the growing fear the Supreme Court would rule the Second not an individual right. (In fact, recently had an argument with a Lawyer who assured me it was not an individual right.)

I was surprised Montana would challenge the Feds.


munk

 

[publius]

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Legislative declaration of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7 6] is the following:...

Those all seem quite obviously true to me. The Court has said that the 10th amendment is merely a truism, and they'll shoot down the rest of the arguments as well if they want to do so.

Cortland makes a good point about a modern-day "Montana Resolution." They're poking the federal bear in the eye. Well, good, he needs poking. But he's a bear.