Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 05/02/2013 10:35:34 AM PDT by ColdOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: ColdOne

Good luck Mr. Ruby Wac0.


2 posted on 05/02/2013 10:36:35 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne
Mr. Holder cites the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law trumps conflicting state authority or exercise of power.

I guess he quit reading the Bill of Rights at the end of the First Amendment. He missed amendments 2 and 10.

3 posted on 05/02/2013 10:38:21 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne

Holder, in this, also justifies the Fugitive Slave Act and says states had no authority to employ nullification against it.

The irony is delicious.


4 posted on 05/02/2013 10:38:22 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne

FU Faggot.

10th Amendment ...

You do not have authority.


5 posted on 05/02/2013 10:39:14 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne
“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.”

Simple answer: Stay the F out of our state!

6 posted on 05/02/2013 10:39:55 AM PDT by Feckless (I was trained by the US << This Tagline Censored by FR >> ain't that irOnic?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne
directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional,

Yeah, but federal gun control law would be unconstitutional, so UP YOURS, Mr Fast and Furious.

7 posted on 05/02/2013 10:40:04 AM PDT by SIDENET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne

Take it up with the guys in robes, Mr. Fast & Furious. BTT.


8 posted on 05/02/2013 10:40:26 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne
Try enforcing the border "federal law" first...than we'll talk....

FUEH

9 posted on 05/02/2013 10:40:46 AM PDT by RckyRaCoCo (Shall Not Be Infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne

Like Holder gives a shit about the Constitution.


10 posted on 05/02/2013 10:41:08 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne

“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.


11 posted on 05/02/2013 10:41:15 AM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne

Supremacy Clause????

GFY.

Show us where you have authority.


12 posted on 05/02/2013 10:41:28 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne

Doesn’t it just burn . . . when our enemies, when race baiting demagogues invoke the Constitution they despise and work to destroy?


13 posted on 05/02/2013 10:41:47 AM PDT by Jacquerie (How few were left who had seen the republic! - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne

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.


14 posted on 05/02/2013 10:41:59 AM PDT by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne

The fact that it’s even gotten this far means people are quickly losing their fear of the Obunga/Holder/Incompetano team.


16 posted on 05/02/2013 10:42:50 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne

Ahem, Mr. Holder, as a Kansan, you aren’t taking our state over for the Nanny State that you and Obama envision!


17 posted on 05/02/2013 10:43:11 AM PDT by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne
the state law is unconstitutional, Attorney General Eric H. Holder said

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.

18 posted on 05/02/2013 10:43:29 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne

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?


19 posted on 05/02/2013 10:43:58 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne

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.


22 posted on 05/02/2013 10:47:54 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne

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.


23 posted on 05/02/2013 10:48:25 AM PDT by Diogenesis (De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ColdOne
“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.”

Yeah? Wait and see.

27 posted on 05/02/2013 10:52:55 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson