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 ...
“Doesn’t it just burn . . . when our enemies, when race baiting demagogues invoke the Constitution they despise and work to destroy?”
Alinsky
Holder’s probably right, but it isn’t his place to declare what is Constitutional and what is not. Until Kansas actually tries to enforce the law it won’t make it to court for a final determination.
Holder’s burning alive of American
children was not Constitutional.
Holder’s holding back of US law enforcement
by COLOR was not Constitutional.
Holder’s arming of narcoterrorists
and Islamic terrorists is not Constitutional.
HF
Holder can take the Supremacy Clause and shove it up his Obama.
Only valid federal laws enacted pursuant to enumerated powers under the Constitution, with the Tenth Amendment as a backdrop, are supreme.
The left has been claiming supremacy for the Feds to do whatever they want to whoever they want under their misguided interpretation of the Constitution.
I’m a lawyer and I know full well how this plays out. That said, states need to STOP trying to fight the federal government by playing by their rules on their turf. Just tell them to STFU and hold your ground.
Don’t try to litigate in a federal court expecting a fair shake.
That is one of the many reasons the 17th Amendment was such a horrible idea.
Imagine all federal judges having to be confirmed by a body (senate) comprised of essentially embassadors from each state to represent the states best interest. The all powerful commerce clause (presently in question) would not be what it is today, and the Tenth Amendment would carry a lot if weight.
The 17th Amendment took a brilliant concept by the founders and twisted it beyond repair.
Now in the legislative brach we simply have the same pigs kept in two separate pens.
It should be one body to quickly act on behalf of the people, knowing that reelection is just around the corner.
Then a completely separate body that is there to slowly deliberate and advocate for the interest of their state.
That’s what would have stopped all the nonsense since the 17th A was adopted.
Yeah? Wait and see.
Kansas needs to tell Holder he does not have standing...
Obama couldn’t care less about the constitution. It has become Might Is Right.
I agree.
Very well stated.
I’m not anxious to see CW-II started, but I’ll do my part to bring it to a swift end. Kansas is as good a place as any to stand ground.
i.e. I am in agreement with you on this.
Moulon Labe.
Hold firm, Kansas. The whole danged state.
Well, no. Federal Laws infringing on the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional, and may appropriately be ignored by the states, and resisted as needed.
Like Holder gives a shit about the Constitution.
sure he does , it’s printed on his toilet paper and uses it every day
The tree of liberty is looking mighty parched.
Bloody Kansas II ?
Count me in. We all owe a debt to those who left bloody footprints on the frozen ground at Valley Forge. It's past time to pay that debt.
When debating with liberals you don't want to bring up the constitution because it will only be used as a weapon against those who respect it by those who don't. They will be more than happy to use it to score political points and then abandon it when it is no longer useful.
They will twist the 4th amendment or the 1st amendment or the 14th amendment to mean some new thing that it didn't mean at the time it was written. Then when a conservative points out exactly what it says in the 2nd amendment, the liberal will say, "Well, the constitution is outdated and doesn't really apply any more."
In any debate, you need to first agree on the principals and then argue why the principals endorse your position and refute your opponents position.
It used to be we all agreed that the constitution, the way it was written, was supreme and sovereign. It was entirely appropriate to use it in an argument. That is no longer the case. We now have to back up a few steps in our argument and use other principals which are agreed upon. (if there are any)
Oh I see.... NOW you are worried about the Constitution.
New York law now prohibits me from loading more than 7 rounds of ammo in a magazine for my semi-auto pistols. Federal law has no such limitation. Since the two laws conflict, does that mean that I can ignore New York 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.