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. A state law enforcement official or local law enforcement official that would try to impede, interfere or try to intimidate a federal official from performing their duties would be subject to immediate arrest by the feds and be brought before a Federal magistrate. The feds would not let their agents stay in a local jail but would use federal authority to order them released.
Also, it is actually Holder’s job to remind state officials that certain of their laws conflict with federal laws. US attorneys all over the country write these letters to state officials as part of their jobs from time to time. If the state of Kansas wishes to challenge this ruling they can file suit in the US District Court in Kansas.
US Attorneys enforce federal law and part of their jobs is official memorandums to state officials that state laws are conflicting to federal law. This is not a conservative vs liberal argument but Holder doing his job.
Lastly, I am a Reagan conservative but we as conservatives need to understand how the law works.
Lawful does not automatically equal rational or moral.
That may be how the law works but if a law is unjust or constitutional then just acceptance of it, even if it has been approved by the court, isn’t right. That’s hoe I feel about Obamacare, and I don’t plan on filling out that form for the IRS. If they want to imprison or impoverish me, so be it.
There is a big twist to this.
The SCOTUS has in past recognized that state courts are inferior to federal courts; and that state legislatures are inferior to congress; however, they have *never* found that the POTUS is superior to state governors.
This means that the only way the president can enforce his will over that of state governors is by force of arms.
The last time this was done was when Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock to force integration, despite the presence of the Arkansas National Guard, under the orders of governor Orval Faubus.
The trick, in this case, would be to arrange a similar situation, figuring that the current administration is too spineless to send in the Army to enforce an unconstitutional law.
Granted, all else being equal, the feds would eventually win. But the purpose of the exercise would be to so thoroughly embarrass them, and rally so much opposition to them, that they would lose the game.
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].
“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.
“Lastly, I am a Reagan conservative but we as conservatives need to understand how the law works.”
Are you serious? Get up to speed, Tarheel. The criminal fascist syndicate occupying Washington doesn’t obey any law, especially the Constitution.
You want to play patty-cake with criminals, go ahead. But you’re not about to drag me into your stupid “understand-how-the-law-works” crap.
You smell like a DU-Soros troll.