Way to go, we’ re all behind you, and were all in this together.

Don’t let ‘em redefine the Constitution, even in a throwaway quote. OK?

My apologies for not including that in the comment.

But the military trains its recruits in how to use weapondry. Assuming there is a draft or a call to arms, they don’t just take the gun owners — they take the gun owners and the non-gun owners alike. If the purpose was to insure that the citizenry are “pre-trained” in the use of guns, then making gun ownership voluntary seems to defeat the purpose.

The Amendment makes perfect sense when you put it in the context of the time: There was no Army/Navy/AirForce/Marines. If the nation needed a military, it summoned the State mititias. They didn’t have stockpiles of weapons either, so the guns the militia members owned were the bulk of the ones used to fight wars.

1. R.J. Harris in Oklahoma for the U.S. House: http://rjharris2010.blogspot.com/2009/04/wake-up-america-its-time-to-fight-for.html & http://www.rjharris2010.com/

2. State Senator Randy Brogdon for governor of Oklahoma:
http://www.randybrogdon.com/

3. Ray McBerry for governor of Georgia:
http://georgiafirst.org/SecondVersion/enter.shtml

4. Debra Medina for governor of Texas:
http://www.runmedina.com/ & http://debramedina.us/

5. Adam Kokesh in New Mexico for the U.S. House:
http://draftkokesh.com/ & http://kokesh.netboots.net/

6. Peter Schiff from Connecticut for the U.S. Senate:
http://www.schiff2010.com/

7. Dr. Rand Paul from Kentucky for the U.S. Senate:
http://www.rand2010.com/

No, I have my history pretty straight. Yes, the Democrats were the party of race-baiting until they bequeathed that job to the GOP, which took it over enthusiastically.

But I don’t find the navigable waters argument surprising in the least:
1) You can indeed navigate wetlands.
2) Water tends to flow downhill…a long ways.

This isn’t some super special alien logic. The US isn’t the only federation that has come to the same conclusion. It’s quite natural to come to this conclusion given the physical realities of how shit works.

With the enactment of the federal water pollution control amendments of 1972 (more commonly known as the CWA), the federal government adopted a very aggressive stance towards the problem of water pollution. Broadly speaking, the CWA essentially eliminates the discharge of any pollutants into the nation’s waters without a permit. Section 404 of the CWA makes illegal the discharging of dredge or fill material into the “navigable waters of the United States” without obtaining a permit from the Secretary of the Army acting through the Corps of Engineers (COE). Until 1975, the Corps construed the term “navigable waters” to mean waters that were actually navigable. In accordance with regulations promulgated in 1975, however, the Corps expanded its jurisdiction to “other waters” of the United States, including streams, wetlands, playa lakes, and natural ponds if the use, degradation or destruction of those areas could affect interstate commerce. A series of court decisions beginning in the mid-1970s also contributed to the COE’s increasing jurisdiction over wetlands. Indeed, in 1983 one federal court held that the term “discharge” may reasonably be understood to include “redeposit” and concluded that the term “discharge” covered the redepositing of soil taken from wetlands such as occurs during mechanized land clearing activities. Furthermore, since 1975, the COE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have defined “waters of the United States” such that the agencies assert regulatory authority over isolated wetlands or wetlands not adjacent to “waters of the United States” if a link exists between the water body and interstate commerce. This interpretation has been upheld judicially.

Which is why they claim authority of a puddle in a farmer’s field.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, recent actions from that branch of the Federal government have also spurred the growth of the 10th Amendment Movement.

The case last year in Lousiana, where the SC was asked for a ruling on whether the death penalty was OK to use in a case of child rape, is a perfect example. The Court should have declined to hear the case, as it is clearly the states authority to set punishments for crimes within its borders. Instead, it heard and made a ruling.

If the court wanted to declare the death penalty cruel and unusual, and therefore make it off limits in all states, it could have done so. But it had no business telling Louisiana what penalty is appropriate for what crime.

With all 3 branches of government whittling away at this amendment, the Movement may be more important than it seems on the surface.