Posted on 05/02/2013 10:35:34 AM PDT by ColdOne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F1nPSNnaBo
only 2 minutes - pass it on after viewing. it is going viral ...
That’s the problem. We don’t have a national government, but a federal one. The federal role has expanded beyond its Constitutional bounds and nationalized too many laws.
This is not really a POTUS versus a state governor legal issue. Basically, Holder is saying that Kansas law enforcement cannot lawfully arrest federal agents performing federal duties even with the Kansas state statute. The authority that federal law enforcement agencies fall under is actually a result of Congressional law. In other words the law enforcement power and various jurisdictions of federal law enforcement agencies is granted and defined through federal law. Basically Holder and of course the POTUS ultimately administers these federal law enforcement agencies but their actual authority to carry out federal law comes from the legislative branch of Congress.
If federal agents violated 18 U.S.C. 241 then other federal agents would arrest them. Also, the federal courts would strike down any federal law that would blatantly and outrageously deprive people of their rights.
“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.
A new law in Kansas that criminalizes the enforcement of federal gun controls in the state is unconstitutional, Attorney General Eric H. Holder said.
“That’s the problem. We don’t have a national government, but a federal one. The federal role has expanded beyond its Constitutional bounds and nationalized too many laws.”
I agree, although it does depend upon how you define national vs federal I think we at least largely agree on that definition as well.
Red..I know you’ll be loving this...a one liner:
“A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens.”
(editorial section Peoria Journal)
And then Clint Eastwood added his words. . . . .
“We Americans are so tired of being thought of as dumbasses by the rest of the world that we went to the polls this past November and removed all doubt.”
Thank you so much for that!
LOLOL.
Outstanding! I saved it. LOL!
Thought you’d enjoy that..me too!
“Thank you for your kind missive, Mr. F&F, er Holder. It’s much appreciated. The TP was running low in the capitol building.”
Just for your info Onyx, didn’t want you to miss this one...and I have one more to send..short but not so sweet.
Here’s a larger problem of Illegal Foreigners... Little known colleges taking foreign student’s money in exchange for enabling them ‘to work’ in the US.
The university listed “553 students as living in a single two-bedroom apartment”..... near the college;... in fact, students were spread out across the country, from Texas to Illinois to Maryland.
Legal filings called Tri-Valley a “sham university” that admitted and collected tuition from foreign students but didn’t require them to attend class.
Many students allegedly worked full-time, low-level retail jobs—in one case, at a 7-Eleven in New Jersey—that were “passed off as career training” so they could be employed while on student visas.
http://chronicle.com/article/Little-Known-Colleges-Exploit/126822/
“Also, the federal courts would strike down any federal law that would blatantly and outrageously deprive people of their rights.”
I wouldn’t bet on it.
Hey HOLDER - FYI FU
“In 1994, Sheriff Mack was the first to file a lawsuit against the Clinton Administration to stop the intrusiveness of the Federal Government associated with the Brady Bill. Six sheriffs from around the country joined the lawsuit. Sheriff Mack’s case went all the way to the Supreme Court where the court ruled on June 27, 1997 that the Brady Bill was unconstitutional and that the Federal Government could not commandeer state of county officers for federal bidding. This was a landmark decision on the issue of state’s rights and local sovereignty.
On January 1, 1997, Sheriff Mack stepped down as Graham County Sheriff and is now consulting, writing books (5 to date), and travelling the country giving seminars on the Ethical Application of the Oath of Office and speaking engagements on the need to stand firm on the constitutional principles that our country was founded on and against the abusive powers of government.”
http://www.sheriffsfirstsc.com/Sheriff-Mack.html
“YOU”RE NOT COMING IN HERE FROM WASHINGTON...” Sheriff Mack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVjRPqK_uLI
Wrong doofus (Holder) ... all rights not expressly given to the Federal Government belongs to the States.
Bring on the court case, Holder. Bring it on.
In practice, I doubt the federal agents would be arrested for directly violating that particular state law. The initial arrest would be for, say, DUI and resisting arrest, with the charges later dismissed.
Since the purpose of this would be to prevent them from seizing firearms, there might be a 48 hour pause in which their intended victim’s weapons would be transferred, making them no longer available for seizure.
Ultimately it is up to Congress. The Supreme Court is not Supreme, just because uncaring politicians have been willing to defer to them.
Because after all nullification has had such a successful track record in our nation's history. </sarcasm>
Want to read the Constitution? Then try reading it. I realize that it's probably a lot longer document than Jayhawkers usually tackle, but try to get down to Article IV where it says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." That means Holder's right when he says federal laws trump state laws. But that assumes the federal law is Constitutional and Holder is not the person to be deciding that. So what you clods need to do is actually arrest a federal officer trying to uphold federal law, take the matter through the courts, and prove your side is right. Can you all handle that or do we need to count on some other state that's passed similar a similar law?
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.