Posted on 05/02/2013 10:35:34 AM PDT by ColdOne
A new law in Kansas that criminalizes the enforcement of federal gun controls in the state is unconstitutional, Attorney General Eric H. Holder said.
“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, [the law] directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional,” Mr. Holder wrote to Gov. Sam Brownback in a letter dated April 26. “Federal officers who are responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations in order to maintain public safety cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution by a state and the continued performance of their federal duties.”
Mr. Holder cites the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law trumps conflicting state authority or exercise of power. Kansas’s law became effective April 25.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Good luck Mr. Ruby Wac0.
I guess he quit reading the Bill of Rights at the end of the First Amendment. He missed amendments 2 and 10.
Holder, in this, also justifies the Fugitive Slave Act and says states had no authority to employ nullification against it.
The irony is delicious.
FU Faggot.
10th Amendment ...
You do not have authority.
Simple answer: Stay the F out of our state!
Yeah, but federal gun control law would be unconstitutional, so UP YOURS, Mr Fast and Furious.
Take it up with the guys in robes, Mr. Fast & Furious. BTT.
FUEH
Like Holder gives a shit about the Constitution.
“Mr. Holder cites the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law trumps conflicting state authority or exercise of power. Kansas’s law became effective April 25.”
Sorry Holder, the supremency clause applies only to constitutional laws that are within the powers granted to the federal government, not your unconstitutional nonsense.
Supremacy Clause????
GFY.
Show us where you have authority.
Doesn’t it just burn . . . when our enemies, when race baiting demagogues invoke the Constitution they despise and work to destroy?
Since when has Holder ever been concerned with the Constitution, and isn’t up to the Supreme Court to ultimately determine if a law is Constitutional? If Holder ever start enforcing all our current laws as required under the Constitution I’ll start to pay attention to him, but that day will never happen with this racist.
Go ahead, Holder, and make Kansas’ day. I am waiting for Obama’s army to just try, just TRY, to take on a Red State.
The fact that it’s even gotten this far means people are quickly losing their fear of the Obunga/Holder/Incompetano team.
Ahem, Mr. Holder, as a Kansan, you aren’t taking our state over for the Nanny State that you and Obama envision!
Last I heard the supremes were the ones to determine the unconstitutionality or not of laws, not some borderline incompetent affirmative action hack from the executive branch.
The Constitution in the 2nd Amendment states:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
That is a restriction on the US Federal government to not infringe on the right to bear arms. How can it be more clear?
According to the Supreme Court, no they didn't. But I think the 13th Amendment took out the need for those.
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.