So I take it the charade of rule by law is supposed to stabilize things while the most corrupt among us increasingly centralize power and so marginalize the rest of us that we are demographically replaced by a new people?
Oh I forgot the clause in the Constitution that says yet another way it may be amended is by a majority vote of the Supreme Court!
So, now that the Supreme Court has wadded up the Constitution and tossed in on the trash heap of history -- essentially making everything a political fight at the Federal level -- when does someone in the military realize their oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic basically requires them to nuke Washington DC?
If the animal products cross state lines, that is the point where the Interstate Commerce Clause kicks in -- not at the brewers who are selling inside the State to animal producers.
Very well -- so where is their authority to regulate animal feed that doesn't cross state lines?
If all it takes to avoid the expensive retooling is restricting the sale of the animal feed to within the State of origin, it seems that would provide an option a lot of these brewers would choose.
Somehow I suspect that the Feds don't _really_ care about the Constitution. Moreover, I suspect that puts me on their "watch" list.
Weed that doesn't cross state lines you mean.
OK, so tell me where in the Constitution I should look for Federal power to regulate beer that doesn't cross state lines.
Thus far my comments have been regarding a hypothetical "treasonous" government -- leaving the definition of that to the reader. However, even if the government isn't "treasonous" it may be that a substantial number of its citizens wish to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness -- even if the government is operating entirely within the law.
The question then becomes less about "Constitutionality" and more about exactly how many people want to depart from the existing form of government and its principles.
What if 30% so intensely object to the present form of government that they advocate armed rebillion toward the end that they might institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness?
Is that enough for the more conscientious of the military to stand down as that 100 million citizens seek to leave what they must see as the moral equivalent to a plantation?
A little anecdote: The wife of a friend of mine, on the morning of 9/11/2001, was watching the news reports come in and the moment the attack on the Pentagon came in, she blurted out "That was the Israelis."
Your little "lesson" about not attacking the military is such common sense that even some housewives consider it incredible that any but a false flag op would do it.
History would tell us that asymmetric war isn't fought the way you portrayed in your prior comment -- hence my comment on your ignorance. It is fought precisely to garner public support.
If you had argued that hotheads, loose cannons and false flag ops are not practically soluble by freedom fighters, then I might have asked you to expand your comment.
You are obviously unqualified to answer for sandytaru. You are utterly oblivious to the history of asymmetric warfare.
Please elaborate. On the face of it your response is unconvincing. In a domestic conflict there are going to be a substantial number of the standing military's ranks that will be sympathetic to the Constitution -- the lack of honor by many in the military notwithstanding. How many of them would it take to so debilitate the treasonous government's military that it would be no more effective on US soil than it was on middle eastern soil?
The atheist believes the sun will rise tomorrow and acts accordingly. This is a very well founded believe but it is a belief nevertheless and acting upon that belief is to act as though the other possibilities will not obtain.
Everyone is religious. Its just that some call their religion their "belief system".
All belief-based acts are acts of faith. And all actions are based on beliefs.
Sorting proponents into governments that test them is the penetration of the Enlightenment into the social sciences. This allows the social sciences to progress beyond "correlation doesn't imply causation" to perform ethical experiments on human subjects that, because there are experimental control groups, permits much stronger inference of causal laws in human ecologies (human societies) than do mere ecological correlations.
So what's not to like about locales, like the Mozilla Foundation or Google or even Silicon Valley, excluding from their midst those who are incompatible with the social experiment that most people want to perform on themselves? After all, it is only by consent of the governed that a jurisdiction can be deemed legitimate.
Here's the problem:
In the modern zeitgeist it is considered the moral equivalent of Satanism to practice what is called "the politics of exclusion". Why? Because it "discriminates".
These fuzzy tropes forget one thing, however -- and it is something that anyone who is involved in technology should understand in their gut:
It is only by "excluding" various hypotheses that we can "discriminate" between truth and falsehood in the real world.
But no one wants to admit that their religion might be false -- including those whose religion is the de facto state religion that enforces "inclusion" and prohibits "discrimination".