Will the government take away your chickens?

I am just guessing but I think it will be ruled unconstitutional on the basis below.



Federalist No. 51:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
He then proceeds to rehearse the outlines of federalism, or dual sovereignty, that the founders sought to establish, citing the Federalist Papers and the Tenth Amendment.
In establishing our government, the Founders endeavored to resolve Madison’s identified “great difficulty” by creating a system of dual sovereignty under which ‘[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.’ The Federalist No. 45, at 311 (Madison); see also U.S. Const. art. I, § 1 (setting forth the specific legislative powers ‘herein granted’ to Congress). When the Bill of Rights was later added to the Constitution in 1791, the Tenth Amendment reaffirmed that relationship: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’
The Framers believed that limiting federal power, and allowing the ‘residual’
power to remain in the hands of the states (and of the people), would help ‘ensure protection of our fundamental liberties” and “reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse.



The states could nulify the law also;
Nullification is accomplished when states exercise their sovereignty by setting aside laws passed by the national legislature that exceed its constitutional power. Any measure passed by Congress that doesn’t conform to the express, limited, and enumerated powers granted to it therein by the people and the states, is null and has not the force of law.
 
Last edited:
I gave up on the SCOTUS caring what is an is not actually constitutional when they ruled that the feds raiding a little old ladies house for growing pot for her on use in a pot legal state as constitutional because that pot may one day cross a state line an that makes it "interstate commerce."
 
They can have my chickens
when they pry them from my
cold
dead
fingers.....

goodpost.gif
That's how I feel!
 
This subsection does not and is not
intended to affect

sus domestica involved in domestic hog production.
It mentions several times this is not ment for hog production. Its ment to wipe out the pig bomb. Natural News seems to be pretty biased anyways. They are trying to get rid of imported hunting stock that mixes with domestic pigs. We really dont need 10ft 1200pound pigs going wild. Those wild hogs destroy alot of farm land.

This subsection does not and is not
intended to affect

sus domestica involved in domestic hog production.
 
If you read the chicken ordinance thread local governments have already been doing this for decades. Despite the second amendment talk, I'll wager dollars to doughnuts that no one on this board (and very few people in the entire country) is willing to shoot a police officer to prevent them from confiscating his or her chickens.

Off to do a web search on shootout and chickens to try to prove myself wrong...


let me help you out...
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-26/news/31239283_1_action-news-house-today-chickens
 
Local and state government have the right to be the most communist or socialist state there is. As long as it doesn't infringe on the constitution. The states we live in have the right to say that we can't own chickens and it would be constitutional. I see how most of the fuss is about the federal government doing the same thing.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom