kansas says eff you to federal government

[Rage Against the McKee]

sustainability. Don't want/need.

LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.

[p1k3]

sustainability. Don't want/need.

LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.

sustainable is just a Liberal buzz word. Doesn't really mean anything.

[GCJayhawker]

The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce.  The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations.  There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.

the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.

I actually just clicked on the link and read the article.  what a laughable pile of crap.

I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.

just stop.  you're making no sense and embarrassing yourself.

So are you saying the state won't make this argument, among others? I think the argument is ridiculous and will not work out at all.

goddammit.

the law is ridiculous because it states that "Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas".  in other words, if a law is unconstitutional, kansas doesn't have to enforce it.  well no crap.  the problem is, these geniuses don't realize (actually they do, but it sounds really good to the constituents and will get them votes next time around) that they don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones aren't.  that's what we have a supreme court for.  so in order for this kansas law to be relevant, the scotus would have to first rule that the federal law in question violates the second amendment, which would mean they wouldn't have to enforce it anyway, ergo the law is completely meaningless.

none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the rough ridin' commerce clause.

You should probably read section 4 of the bill as it was amended by the House committee.  When you do that you will see the bill itself directly references interstate commerce, implying the commerce clause, and how the federal government cannot regulate guns manufactured solely in the state of Kansas. 

[michigancat]

sustainability. Don't want/need.

LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.

sustainable is just a Liberal buzz word. Doesn't really mean anything.

lol wut

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

sustainability. Don't want/need.

LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.

sustainable is just a Liberal buzz word. Doesn't really mean anything.

Not sure if you're trolling or just a dumbass 

[Rams]

The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce.  The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations.  There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.

the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.

I actually just clicked on the link and read the article.  what a laughable pile of crap.

I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.

just stop.  you're making no sense and embarrassing yourself.

So are you saying the state won't make this argument, among others? I think the argument is ridiculous and will not work out at all.

goddammit.

the law is ridiculous because it states that "Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas".  in other words, if a law is unconstitutional, kansas doesn't have to enforce it.  well no crap.  the problem is, these geniuses don't realize (actually they do, but it sounds really good to the constituents and will get them votes next time around) that they don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones aren't.  that's what we have a supreme court for.  so in order for this kansas law to be relevant, the scotus would have to first rule that the federal law in question violates the second amendment, which would mean they wouldn't have to enforce it anyway, ergo the law is completely meaningless.

none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the rough ridin' commerce clause.

You should probably read section 4 of the bill as it was amended by the House committee.  When you do that you will see the bill itself directly references interstate commerce, implying the commerce clause, and how the federal government cannot regulate guns manufactured solely in the state of Kansas.

red herring

[GCJayhawker]

The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce.  The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations.  There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.

the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.

I actually just clicked on the link and read the article.  what a laughable pile of crap.

I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.

just stop.  you're making no sense and embarrassing yourself.

So are you saying the state won't make this argument, among others? I think the argument is ridiculous and will not work out at all.

goddammit.

the law is ridiculous because it states that "Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas".  in other words, if a law is unconstitutional, kansas doesn't have to enforce it.  well no crap.  the problem is, these geniuses don't realize (actually they do, but it sounds really good to the constituents and will get them votes next time around) that they don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones aren't.  that's what we have a supreme court for.  so in order for this kansas law to be relevant, the scotus would have to first rule that the federal law in question violates the second amendment, which would mean they wouldn't have to enforce it anyway, ergo the law is completely meaningless.

none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the rough ridin' commerce clause.

You should probably read section 4 of the bill as it was amended by the House committee.  When you do that you will see the bill itself directly references interstate commerce, implying the commerce clause, and how the federal government cannot regulate guns manufactured solely in the state of Kansas.

red herring

How is it a red herring?  The bill specifically says the federal government can't regulate those guns because they are solely manufactured, sold and used in KS and as such are not part of interstate commerce. Meaning the bill is saying they are not subject to the commerce clause.  I can guarantee you that if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court, a commerce clause argument will come up and the AG's office will make the argument that nothing is part of interstate commerce.

[MakeItRain]

sustainability. Don't want/need.

LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.

sustainable is just a Liberal buzz word. Doesn't really mean anything.

Not sure if you're trolling or just a dumbass 

has to be trolling, no one is that rough ridin' dumb

[ednksu]

The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce.  The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations.  There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.

the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.

I actually just clicked on the link and read the article.  what a laughable pile of crap.

I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.

just stop.  you're making no sense and embarrassing yourself.

So are you saying the state won't make this argument, among others? I think the argument is ridiculous and will not work out at all.

goddammit.

the law is ridiculous because it states that "Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas".  in other words, if a law is unconstitutional, kansas doesn't have to enforce it.  well no crap.  the problem is, these geniuses don't realize (actually they do, but it sounds really good to the constituents and will get them votes next time around) that they don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones aren't.  that's what we have a supreme court for.  so in order for this kansas law to be relevant, the scotus would have to first rule that the federal law in question violates the second amendment, which would mean they wouldn't have to enforce it anyway, ergo the law is completely meaningless.

none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the rough ridin' commerce clause.

You should probably read section 4 of the bill as it was amended by the House committee.  When you do that you will see the bill itself directly references interstate commerce, implying the commerce clause, and how the federal government cannot regulate guns manufactured solely in the state of Kansas.

red herring

How is it a red herring?  The bill specifically says the federal government can't regulate those guns because they are solely manufactured, sold and used in KS and as such are not part of interstate commerce. Meaning the bill is saying they are not subject to the commerce clause.  I can guarantee you that if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court, a commerce clause argument will come up and the AG's office will make the argument that nothing is part of interstate commerce.

Not surprising that KS legislature doesn't have a firm grasp on the Constitution.  First a lot of older regulations were through the commerce clause.  So if this was prior to Heller you might be able to make a convoluted case about the Fed overstepping its 10th amendment abilities.  But since Heller[/i ] the 2nd was applied to the states, sort of since it was D.C.  Now the Fed can work through that nexus to apply gun measures it sees fit. 

Also the issue here is nullification, which a bunch of rough ridin' retards, no offense retards, think is a viable means to challenging constitutionality.  This issue was kinda put to rest 150 years ago. 

[p1k3]

sustainability. Don't want/need.

LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.

sustainable is just a Liberal buzz word. Doesn't really mean anything.

Not sure if you're trolling or just a dumbass 

has to be trolling, no one is that rough ridin' dumb

They just don't want East Coasters storming through telling them how to live and raise crops and stuff. Don't really blame them. They're the ones trolling the Liberal's use of "sustainability" and "going green" et al.

[Rage Against the McKee]

sustainability. Don't want/need.

LMFAO at somebody who gets worked up about the national debt not caring about sustainable production.

sustainable is just a Liberal buzz word. Doesn't really mean anything.

Not sure if you're trolling or just a dumbass 

has to be trolling, no one is that rough ridin' dumb

They just don't want East Coasters storming through telling them how to live and raise crops and stuff. Don't really blame them. They're the ones trolling the Liberal's use of "sustainability" and "going green" et al.

Yeah, let's make it illegal for the state to fund worthy energy projects on the basis that they are sustainable just because we are afraid that east coasters will somehow infiltrate our state legislature and fund similar projects if we don't. That makes sense.

[Rams]

The argument is that the commerce clause does not apply to anything that is not interstate commerce.  The reasoning of this law is that if the gun is wholly manufactured, sold and used in KS it is only intrastate commerce and not subject to federal regulations.  There are several problems with that thinking though: 1) KS does not have the materials available in the state to manufacture weapons, and 2) the Supreme Court of the US has expanded the commerce clause to included basically everything under interstate commerce.

the eff are you talking about? nobody has said anything about the commerce clause.

I actually just clicked on the link and read the article.  what a laughable pile of crap.

I'm saying this is the argument that will be made by KS before the court if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court.

just stop.  you're making no sense and embarrassing yourself.

So are you saying the state won't make this argument, among others? I think the argument is ridiculous and will not work out at all.

goddammit.

the law is ridiculous because it states that "Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas".  in other words, if a law is unconstitutional, kansas doesn't have to enforce it.  well no crap.  the problem is, these geniuses don't realize (actually they do, but it sounds really good to the constituents and will get them votes next time around) that they don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and which ones aren't.  that's what we have a supreme court for.  so in order for this kansas law to be relevant, the scotus would have to first rule that the federal law in question violates the second amendment, which would mean they wouldn't have to enforce it anyway, ergo the law is completely meaningless.

none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the rough ridin' commerce clause.

You should probably read section 4 of the bill as it was amended by the House committee.  When you do that you will see the bill itself directly references interstate commerce, implying the commerce clause, and how the federal government cannot regulate guns manufactured solely in the state of Kansas.

red herring

How is it a red herring?  The bill specifically says the federal government can't regulate those guns because they are solely manufactured, sold and used in KS and as such are not part of interstate commerce. Meaning the bill is saying they are not subject to the commerce clause.  I can guarantee you that if this bill is signed into law and challenged in court, a commerce clause argument will come up and the AG's office will make the argument that nothing is part of interstate commerce.

Not surprising that KS legislature doesn't have a firm grasp on the Constitution.  First a lot of older regulations were through the commerce clause.  So if this was prior to Heller you might be able to make a convoluted case about the Fed overstepping its 10th amendment abilities.  But since Heller[/i ] the 2nd was applied to the states, sort of since it was D.C.  Now the Fed can work through that nexus to apply gun measures it sees fit. 

Also the issue here is nullification, which a bunch of rough ridin' retards, no offense retards, think is a viable means to challenging constitutionality.  This issue was kinda put to rest 150 years ago.

1. you can't magically prevent the scotus from invoking the commerce clause simply by saying the commerce clause doesn't apply

2. just because a few dumbfucks in kansas decided to reference the commerce clause when they were writing this idiotic "law" doesn't mean it has anything whatsoever to do with the commerce clause. 

the bottom line is that it's a meaningless and pointless "law" written by a bunch of diphits. arguing about something like the commerce clause legitimizes this charade in a way that it doesn't deserve.  it would've been a better use of their time to declare kansas the king of all state and home of the easter bunny.

[GCJayhawker]

I was really tired of the massive amounts of quotes. Rams, I agree with you.  I think this law is pointless and will be a huge waste of state resources when the AG defends the law against a lawsuit.  I'm merely saying that IMO during that inevitable lawsuit the AG will make a commerce clause argument.  It is not a winning argument and it is one that should get laughed out of court, but it will happen.

[ednksu]

don't mind rams, he is just angry.  Like any of us are actually going to worry about this bill and its dumbass writers.   
And the point about the commerce clause which Rams and Kansas are missing is that is the old passe way of regulating guns.  Post Heller its a new ball game.

[GCJayhawker]

Ednksu you seem to be giving the state of KS too much credit. You actually think they know the ballgame has changed. 

[Emo EMAW]

Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy?  Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects?  Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses? 

[star seed 7]

Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy?  Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects?  Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?

wut

[p1k3]

Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy?  Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects?  Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?

wut

What if a "sustainable" project doesn't work? Why make the tax payers pay?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy?  Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects?  Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?

wut

What if a "sustainable" project doesn't work? Why make the tax payers pay?

What if a "non-sustainable" project doesn't work? I would think the lawmakers who funded it would be held accountable, just like they would for any other project they fund, sustainable or not.

[Shacks]

Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy?  Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects?  Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?

wut

What if a "sustainable" project doesn't work? Why make the tax payers pay?

What if a "non-sustainable" project doesn't work? I would think the lawmakers who funded it would be held accountable, just like they would for any other project they fund, sustainable or not.

So who was held accountable for the failed War on Drugs or the lack of WMD in Iraq?  Accountability in government, that's a good one.

[p1k3]

Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy?  Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects?  Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?

wut

What if a "sustainable" project doesn't work? Why make the tax payers pay?

What if a "non-sustainable" project doesn't work? I would think the lawmakers who funded it would be held accountable, just like they would for any other project they fund, sustainable or not.

Well I agree. We shouldn't really fund anything IMO.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Why should the state fund projects that make others wealthy?  Why shouldn't the wealthy fund those projects?  Seems to me like you idiots are advocating a way of socializing losses?

wut

What if a "sustainable" project doesn't work? Why make the tax payers pay?

What if a "non-sustainable" project doesn't work? I would think the lawmakers who funded it would be held accountable, just like they would for any other project they fund, sustainable or not.

Well I agree. We shouldn't really fund anything IMO.

I think we should be funding large scale projects, energy and otherwise, that will spark economic growth in Kansas. We should also be trying to use these projects to get federal funds to Kansas. Good luck getting federal funding for any project that has absolutely no sustainable energy and wildlife components, though.

[Emo EMAW]

People hate pork unless you're the one eating it, I guess.

[michigancat]

I mean, you guys, they want to ban the use of public funds on anything that does this:

“development in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come."

I mean, really.

Really?

Really.

[michigancat]

Like, I take that to mean that they couldn't make a state building LEED certified. could you use state funds to purchase a programmable thermostat for a state building? Energy efficient windows? WHAT THE eff, YOU GUYS.