Replying to a message of Jeff Binkley to Bob Ackley:

 JB>>> The states have been successful with state's rights on the
 JB>>> subject of  gay marriage.  It is going to prove to be a
 JB>>> very interesting process and  it may turn out that another
 JB>>> amendment will be needed.  The Supreme  Court is long
 JB>>> overdue to rule on state's rights vs. federal powers.  
 JB>>> There are many areas where the US Congress has trampled
 JB>>> state's rights.

 BA>> You obviously have more faith in the court system than I
 BA>> do.  I've been wrong before, the SC's ruling that the 2nd
 BA>> Amendment protects the individual right to own a firearm
 BA>> being one of them, I was pleasantly surprised.

 BA>> Of course, when you always expect the worst possible
 BA>> outcome you only get pleasant surprises. 

 JB> I am not saying the state's will be successful via the
 JB> lawsuit approach.   But via the legal challenge they will
 JB> pose by having enacted laws within  their state, they will
 JB> be on more firm footing.  The Supreme Court will  have a
 JB> difficult time be face with whether state's rights trump
 JB> the  commerce clause, for an activity that is clearly not
 JB> commerce.  It  should be a good argument.  

Not to a court that has held that *not* participating in commerce at all was
in fact participating in interstate commerce or decided that holding a person
in prison for years without ever being charged with a crime is perfectly OK.
I have a very jaundiced eye WRT the court system of this country.

The "... regulation of commerce among the states ..." clause was
put there to
prevent the states from imposing import or export tariffs on commerce between
the states, and that's *all* it was intended to do.  The *only* proper application
of it in recent years was when the feds prevented Wyoming from imposing a
'severance tax' on coal shipped out of the state.

---