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 ...
Even without the 2nd Amendment - the Federal government is supposedly one of limited and enumerated powers - all powers NOT so enumerated are the domain of the people and the States.
Well said.
While I used to support the repeal of 17A and would still support its repeal, 17A only reflects the actual problem with unconstitutionally big federal government imo. After all, federal senators take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, including respecting the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, no matter who elects them.
But more specifically, generations of "fat, dumb and happy" partriots have not been making sure that their children are being taught the Constitution as the Founding States had intended for it to be understoood, particularly the division of federal and state government powers evidenced by the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I, Article V and the 10th Amendment. So Constitution-ignorant patriots can sleep in the bed that they have made for themselves with respect to now having unconstitutionally big federal government on their backs.
Leni
Disband the federal Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court and retire them all.
We no longer need them.
Ww have Eric Holder to tell us what is constitutional and what is not.
Do you think I am being unfair to either? Agenda Serving Bullies, Crack-Pots Betraying Duty?.
William Flax
I live far enough from the major population centers (in this case, Louisville and Lexington) that they will have to pass through so much territory like mine with people like me that it will cull the herd significantly. Meanwhile, those of us here will share eggs, beef, lamb, goats and canning.
This is a good rundown:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2529196/posts
Watch, it will not be long before Holder plays the “RACE CARD!”
When they are out of chips they will always throw it out.
Don’t count on the courts. Chief Justice Roberts will discover that confiscating guns is really just another form of taxation.
Interesting. So states fear oppression from the Federal Government to the point where they pass laws prohibiting enforcement just to protect their citizen’s Constitutional rights.
Then the AG says, “You can’t do that, Kansas. That’s unconstitutional and we are coming after you.
Anybody notice whether Holder’s agents have gotten more polite in Kansas lately?
They have no _legitimate_ authority - that comes from the Constitution.
The only authority they have comes from force, and that authority is no more legitimate than a common thug forcing you to do his will.
no
Holder might not read ancient Gleek——translate to coloquial English——”come and get it -—dirtbag”
It’s time the states just start doing what they (via their state legislatures) think is best for the states, and ignoring the Federal government and the Supreme Court. I’d love to see a coaltion of freepers with constitutional knowledge talk through how that might play out.
States just start making laws as we see fit and completely ignore the federal government. Have the states determine what they think is in constitutional limits. If we as a state decide we don’t want any more welfare, EBT cards, etc etc in our state, we, as a state, just say “thanks but no thanks”, stop taking federal money within the state, and reduce the amount of income tax we send in (have the states collect what they think is appropriate to send to the Fed Gov for national defense, and that’s about it).
If we don’t want the federal govt nose in our universities, we stop accepting their grants, loans, etc, and reduce income tax by that much. If we don’t want the EPA within our state boundaries, we tell them they have no legal authority within our state and send them home. If we don’t want the federal government dictating about our schools, stop accepting their money and just ignore their dictates. States can determine their own environmental laws that are best for that state. States determine how much if any forms of welfare they want. States can return all authority for public schooling (if any) to local townships.
We’d have to have the state legislatures that are conservative bring this up and vote on how it could be accomplished. States wouldn’t be “seceding”, but would be just saying - hey, we have decided to live within the original constitutional limits, we aren’t accepting any more federal payoffs, regulations, or anything else outside of the small bit of responsibility that the US Federal government was originally supposed to have.
I’d love to see a coaltion of states working towards this.
Border states would set up their own border controls and if Fed gov still tries to let in more illegals, at least they wouldn’t be attracted to the conservative states because there would be no welfare “bait” for them. They would all head toward the blue states.
If a state like California wants to keep on being socialized more and more, they can do that, but states that want to be free, conservative and Christian in their laws, we’ll do that and no one will tell us not to, and we just plain refuse to accept the tax burden for that portion of the income tax bill! This way, the uber liberal states can keep going down their destructive paths, but is only THEY who pay the consequences, not everyone else in the country.
Also- people could move to different states that fit what they are looking for. If they want an oppressive, perverted nanny state, they have their choice, but if they want to live free and independent as self governing Christians, then they would go live in a different state. (After all, the limitation of establishment of religion was in the US Constitution and limited CONGRESS – it said nothing about what state legislatures could and could not do.) We could have some states that lean more “libertarian” in their laws, and some states more “conservative Christian”. So if your state wanted to actually go back to enforcing laws against pornography in TV and movies, you could, but a neighboring state might allow different standards.
If some courageous state governors and legislators would do this maybe we could avoid a civil war and the ensuing complete break up of the country. Then our country could go back to being 50 experiments in different ways of self government, without this huge evil nationalist bureaucracy oppressing us at every turn.
“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.”
I would also say that the “Coalition of Constitutional States” should probably each beef up their State militias, so that if the Fed govt decides they don’t like this plan and actually want to use force, maybe they would think twice about it. Maybe just the knowledge that individual states are armed to the teeth and ready to fight for their freedom would make them back off.
Maybe even those states make a requirement that each citizen must own at least one firearm, have not accepted ANY type of welfare benefit for 5 years, and take a test on the meaning of the constitution before being allowed to vote. If the feds or Supreme Court doesn’t like it, then again – just ignore them. That’s what the liberals have been doing to us for 50 years now, just ignoring the plain meaning of our constitution. It’s time we call their bluff and point out that “the emperor has no clothes” and they’ve been getting away with all that because the states have allowed them to.
This way it’s not just a bunch of frustrated individuals turning their back on all government, we could actually respect and honor our true, valid government – which is our states, and then the states figure out how to deal with the federal government and how much interference they will accept and pay for.
I’m sure some of you with more knowledge could shoot holes in this idea, but maybe there are bits and pieces that might work or make sense?
See ya in court buckaroo.
Hmmm, I just thought of a big big problem with my long post.
The Dollar.
As long as we are all attached to the dollar, we in the red states would be like the more solvent European countries are to the insolvent southern Mediteranean ones. Tied to them and reaping the consequences of their decisions.
If we were to stop paying in income tax and the blue states like California keep spending like crazy, they would just keep printing and devaluing the dollar. And if the whole country is tied to the dollar - that is bad.
I don’t know the answer to that one....
Well I need to get busy but will be interested in seeing what other freepers think.
Anybody got a big frying pan labeled “Hypocrite”? This retard needs a good whack with it.
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.