Leave the "conventions" to Vegas ...

... PLEASE!

I sent a text message or 12 to you Titus, and Pliny the Younger there the other night on Montana's move. Utah & Texas are set to do the same. This nullification process, in my opinion, is MUCH preferable to another Constitutional Convention. Less we forget, the founders originally met at that convention set on "amending" the Articles of Confederation, and ended up tossing that document out completely & starting over. Personally I haven't the faith in Pelosi, Reid & Obama that I do in Adams, Jefferson, Franklin & Washington. With another convention the risk of their influence far outweighs the reward, thus I throw my lot in with Titus - nullification. And his point is sharp -the problem is that we are ignoring, distorting or perverting it now, and that behavior will only become legitimized as real law with a new Convention.

Now the Montana move is interesting in particular. And for this reason, it's over GUNS. Were it any other commodity, oranges or garage doors, this wouldn't have the exposure potential that a gun battle (pardon the lazy pun), does.

Here's the nuts and bolts of what is going on in my estimation: the stunning and sudden scope, size, intrusion and redefined role of federal power that Obama has either enacted or articulated (in terms of the "direction" he sees as America's future) in his first 100 days has, to put it in scientific terms, had an opposite and equal reaction. Those of us from lay people to state governor's have become determined to push back against federal power. Enter the Montana gun law. This move by these handful of states would be the first huge salvo fired in a nation wide federal push back because once this gets to the Supreme Court, and it will - the first day these guns go on sale in Montana the court filings are already set to fly - we have a chance to essentially reverse the huge, sweeping powers the Court has afforded the federal government under distorted interpretations of the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). A perversion which was legitimized in the 1942 ruling under Wickard v. Filburn. In 1933 congress passed the the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the goal of the legislation was to limit the total production of wheat, so that the supply and demand of wheat would be stabilized, thereby ending the cycle of broad price swings that were deemed to be destructive of the farm economy. Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted (the permitted amount was roughly 11.1 acres, he planted 23). Filburn argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause. Unfortunately the issue was reoriented by the Court to be viewed not by how one characterized the activity as local, but rather whether the activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce", as this majority opinion excerpt states:

Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'

See, even though the farmer correctly argued that he would never enter his surplus into "commerce" of any kind, the court ruled that his personal excess allowed Filburn to not have to buy his needed wheat on the open market and his "non purchase" has as much an effect on the commerce as an actual purchase, and thus fell under the Commerce Clause, more specifically rights of the AAA, or the right/protection of the "collective" over the individual.

This ruling opened up the flood gates of federal intervention into state private business that prior to was thought, well ... unthinkable. Constructionist judges have long held that after Dredd Scott this is a shining example of the poorest of jurisprudence. There are 4 of the current justices: Scalia, Thomas, Alito & Roberts that conventional wisdom will say are itching to have the "right" case in order to reverse Wickard v. Filburn, and at least 2 more whose past rulings indicate (so I've heard) they may join them for a majority. And Montana may just give them the "right case."

And as I stated before, precisely because this is about guns it will be paid attention to, thus bringing state's rights arguments to the forefront in a way we as a nation (and a conservative movement) desperately need.

Now, as to what I mean by "we." I am not prepared to throw away my GOP membership card. I would argue that if my exaltation of core conservative principles makes one think I'm leaning Libertarian, or am "too conservative" for the Grand Ol' Party, that is a commentary on the Republican Party, rather then on F.Ryan or Glenn Beck. Reagan caused a similar Party choice in his primary run against George H. Bush. The "blue blood", soft on big government (one might even call it "compassionate conservatism") vs Raegan's unyielding conservative message was the choice Republican primary voters had in 1980. Reagan stated then, as I am paraphrasing now: it is easier to retake the Republican Party then form a completely new one. And that is exactly what I intend to do (errr ... what "we" intend to do - pardon me, Napoleonic complex got the better of me for a brief moment). Specter is gone, Powell is gone, and there is a definite chasm formed between those Republicans that want a more "progressive" Party, and those such as I & Beck whom want a return to core values & principles. The problem the progressive Republicans have, and what I don't understand, is we all know the victory margins Reagan, and to an extent Gingrich won by when the Party followed an unapologetic conservative message, so why they would want to depart from such an obvious course to victory is beyond me (outside of simply wanting to be viewed as "enlightened" at beltway cocktail paries, in which case they can have that party, and leave me mine).

So let the Specters and Powells leave. Let the Joe Scarborough's and the McCains yak on about the need of a softer, more progressive GOP while Beck, Limbaugh, the Rick Perry's (TX governor), and the F. Ryan's make their case, and we will see where the Party chips fall. I am supremely confident that history is the surest guide to the future, and conservatism will find itself victorious once again.

Oh, and ps> speaking of the future, the new Star Trek was fantastic.