yup, he cares about it even less than he knows about it...
Posted on 05/02/2013 10:35:34 AM PDT by ColdOne
Federal acts which are unconstitutional are not laws. If the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, then by definition there can be no laws which contradict it. Maybe I'm a broken record, but I really wish conservatives would remove the oxymoronic phrase "unconstitutional law" from their vocabulary, and refer to unconstitutional legislation as the XXX Act or XXX Statute, rather than dignifying it with the undeserved title "XXX Law".
Bwahaha!!! no I don’t give him that much credit. Tip of a needle to much space for what he cares about the Constitution!
Holder has never been right in his life.
All restrictions on personal firearms are unconstitutional.
Federal agents have no lawful authority to enforce any statute or other rule in any fashion which would contradict the supreme Law of the Land. If one accepts as a premise that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme Law of the Land, then by definition any action contrary to it is illegitimate. While I am happy to see states declaring their non-acceptance of federal statutes, I'm unhappy with the fact that states' legislation doesn't declare that unconstitutional statutes and other rules are not laws, and do not "become" illegitimate as a consequence of court rulings, but rather are illegitimate from their inception as a result of their contradiction with the Constitution [with the rare exception of laws voided by Constitutional amendments; their illegitimacy would stem from the date of the amendment's ratification].
Did you see this?
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/kansas-to-eric-holder-were-not-backing-down/
So laws against felons owning firearms, owning sawed-off shotguns, or not being able to bring guns into police stations are all unconstitutional? I don't think the Supreme Court agrees with that.
yup, he cares about it even less than he knows about it...
Great comments & I heartily embrace your constitutional views & unfettered manner of speaking.
As a U.S. citizen in good standing, I hereby nominate & proclaim you for the Supreme Court. You may replace any one of the following 4 justices.... Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayer or Ginsberg (especially anyone of the last 3)
incompetence in the urban dictionary - see Eric Holder.
thank you for the link to Kris W. Kobach Sec of state response to Eric Holder:
In conclusion, the State of kansas stands firmly on the principles laid out in United States Constitution. SB 102 is fully supported by the Second Amendment, the tenth Amendment, and the limited scope of the Interstate Commerce Claus. The Obama Administration has repeatedly violated the US Constitution for the past four-and -half years. That abuse cannot continue. The State of kansas is determined to restore the Constitution and to protect the right of its citizens to keep and gear arms.
I am having a hard time verifying if that is honest and true.. but it is out there in a few places.
I am having a hard time verifying if that is honest and true.. but it is out there in a few places.
Wrong. Ultimately, it is we the people that decide.
Let’s not depend on some black robed elites to protect our rights.
I don’t care what the suprremes agree with.
The language in the 2nd ammendment is clear: “shall not be infringed.”
The founders were not unaware of people committing crimes, yet they completely tied the government’s hand WRT personal arms.
Sawed off shotguns are a very useful defense weapon; the soldier in the trenches’ favorite weapon for close combat.
Why should police fear guns being brought into their stations? That’s insane.
As to felons, after they have served their time their guns are nobody else’s business; penalties cannot go on forever.
Where do you get your far left ideas? Why are you here?
Because I get to meet people like you.
“State or local officials have no lawful authority to arrest federal agents from officially and faithfully enforcing federal law even using state law as a reason.”
Yes they do:
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
“This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).”
By the logic of your argument the Federal government could pass a law allowing Federal agents to enter the homes of citizens without a warrant, slaughter everyone inside, loot their personal property, and local law enforcement would be powerless to stop it. The Constitution through nullification grants the states the ultimate authority to keep the Federal government in check against such outrageous acts/laws. And that’s regardless of what federal courts have to say on such outrageous and unconstitutional laws, since they’re really just a branch of the federal government. So what is the federal courts function then? Their only choice is to strike down unconstitutional laws, or be subject to nullification.
The problem is that it is the federal judiciary(US District Courts, Circuit Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS) that determine whether federal laws or even state laws conflict with the United States Constitution). While a state may have a legitimate argument that a federal law is contrary to the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution the state in of itself has no lawful power to nullify the federal law or make a state law in contrary to the federal law. The combined power of a state governor, state legislature, state supreme court and local law enforcement cannot stop the enforcement of a federal law that is on the books by federal officers enforcing the federal law.
The only way this country will return to what it should be is at the ballot box and to elect a conservative President who will make conservative appointments to the federal judiciary. Also, we need a conservative Congress. All of these nullification laws that are only really symbolic is only going to make the federal government stronger in the end as the federal judiciary will likely utterly reject these state laws and establish even stronger precedent against state nullification laws.
“The problem is that it is the federal judiciary(US District Courts, Circuit Court of Appeals and the SCOTUS) that determine whether federal laws or even state laws conflict with the United States Constitution). While a state may have a legitimate argument that a federal law is contrary to the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution the state in of itself has no lawful power to nullify the federal law or make a state law in contrary to the federal law. The combined power of a state governor, state legislature, state supreme court and local law enforcement cannot stop the enforcement of a federal law that is on the books by federal officers enforcing the federal law.”
The federal judiciary is just a branch of the federal government and does not supersede the Constitution. Quoting Thomas Jefferson:
“Furthermore, the general government is not the final and authoritative judge of its own powers, since that would make the government’s discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of those powers-but rather the parties to the contract, the states, have each an equal right to judge for themselves whether the Constitution has been violated as well as “the mode and measure of redress”-since there is no common judge of such matters among them.
Thus, every state can of its own authority nullify within its territory “all assumptions of power by others”-i.e., all perceived violations of the Constitution by the federal government.”
So once again the Cornh***er noob is here to tell us about Kansas and States rights. The Constitution and the interpretation thereof is finally in the hands of the people. You may choose to disagree but that's how it was established and that is how it will be preserved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.