Skip to comments.
Kansas SOC response to Eric Holder
Kansas Secretary of State ^
| 5/2/2013
| Kris W. Koback
Posted on 05/03/2013 2:11:56 PM PDT by JohnKinAK
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
To: JohnKinAK
Holder declares SB 102 to be unconstitutional and suggests that federal officials will disregard it.I was under the impression that another of the divided powers of the Federal Government "decides" what is Constitutional and Un-Constitutional. The Court. Now part of the Executive falsely called the "Department of Justice" thinks it does.
To: JohnKinAK
22
posted on
05/03/2013 2:36:20 PM PDT
by
Liberty Valance
(Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
To: JohnKinAK
23
posted on
05/03/2013 2:50:54 PM PDT
by
Vendome
(Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
To: JohnKinAK
24
posted on
05/03/2013 2:54:40 PM PDT
by
yldstrk
(My heroes have always been cowboys)
To: JohnKinAK
25
posted on
05/03/2013 2:55:12 PM PDT
by
Cyber Liberty
(I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
To: Texas Fossil
yeah Holder you are wrong only the S Ct can declare the law unconstitutional and it has to go up the chain properly so stfu
26
posted on
05/03/2013 2:56:17 PM PDT
by
yldstrk
(My heroes have always been cowboys)
To: GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
Not happy with Jan Brewer? Not particularly, no. Just vetoed a bill to allow use of Silver and Gold as currency in the state of AZ. She is not, and never was, a conservative.
27
posted on
05/03/2013 2:57:49 PM PDT
by
Cyber Liberty
(I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
To: JohnKinAK
The only problem with the author's argument is that Supreme Court precedent is against him. In a New Deal era decision called
Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that wheat that was grown by a farmer for his own family's use could be regulated by the Congress under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The wheat was never sold, and so it never entered into interstate commerce. But the reasoning was that because the farmer grew the wheat for his own consumption, he did not need to buy wheat from someone else - and THAT affected interstate commerce.
So I can easily see how the courts could rule that guns made in Kansas, sold in Kansas and kept in Kansas could affect Interstate Commerce because Kansans would not need to buy from gun makers in other states - and find that those guns are subject to regulation on that basis.
28
posted on
05/03/2013 3:04:48 PM PDT
by
CA Conservative
(Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
To: RobbyS
FWIW, the Framers considered and rejected expansive commerce powers in direct opposition to Wickard v. Filburn,
here.
29
posted on
05/03/2013 3:05:57 PM PDT
by
Jacquerie
(How few were left who had seen the republic! - Tacitus, The Annals)
To: JohnKinAK
30
posted on
05/03/2013 3:06:51 PM PDT
by
bankwalker
(In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.)
To: GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
That is some letter! I look forward to our AG Abbott taking a similar tack with “Holder” (Ha - no “Mr., no Atty. Gen., just Holder).
To: JohnKinAK
Next thing ya know, eric the red holder will be trying to pull a sting on the State of Knasas, for defying his commie powers.
32
posted on
05/03/2013 3:20:56 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Being deceived can be cured.)
To: CA Conservative
SCOTUS has been wrong so many times before.
Precedence can KMA. The abuse of the Interstate Commerce clause is a blatant power grab and it will some day result in the dissolution of the Union.
33
posted on
05/03/2013 3:25:04 PM PDT
by
EricT.
(Another Muslim terrorist. Who saw that coming?)
To: Secret Agent Man
I don’t see Illinois governor Quinn doing something like this. In fact, it would not surprise me to see him invite Holder and federal posse to harass gun owners..
34
posted on
05/03/2013 3:25:17 PM PDT
by
cardinal4
(Constitution? What Constitution?)
To: JohnKinAK
As one of the co-authors of SB 102 and a former professor of constitutional law, I ensured that it was drafted to withstand any legal challenge. Silly man.
Only the King can decide what will survive Constitutional challenge, and what is legal or not.
And don't presume to know that what was legal and constitutional then is legal and constitutional now.
"That was a long time ago" is the new legal yardstick to measure relevancy. People said that Obama's words came with an expiration date. Now it is codified by his spokesperson.
-PJ
35
posted on
05/03/2013 3:32:26 PM PDT
by
Political Junkie Too
(If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
To: CA Conservative
Whatever.
You have to try, try and try again — not give up and knuckle under to the tyranny because you “suppose” you can’t win!
God Bless Kansas!
36
posted on
05/03/2013 3:36:44 PM PDT
by
Nervous Tick
(Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
To: JohnKinAK; Jacquerie; All
WOOOHOOOO! HOORAY Kris W. Koback! Thanks for the link to that very good thread (revisited), Jacquerie.
Constitutional BUMP! Federalists/anti-federalists BUMP! FReedom-sovereignty/slavery BUMP!
37
posted on
05/03/2013 3:43:16 PM PDT
by
PGalt
To: JohnKinAK; All
“The Obama Administration has repeatedly violated the United States Constitution the past four-and-a-half years. That abuse cannot continue.”
38
posted on
05/03/2013 4:00:10 PM PDT
by
Hotlanta Mike
("Governing a great natiorn is like cooking a small fish - too much handling will spoil it." Lao Tzu)
To: JohnKinAK
This thread made my day...
I used to be amazed at the hubris and unmitigated arrogance emulating from this White House...not any more...it's a daily occurance
They do actually believe they are above the law...
Great to see someone tell them to go pound and and be in their face about it..
39
posted on
05/03/2013 4:10:44 PM PDT
by
Popman
(Godlessness is always the first step to the concentration camp.)
To: JohnKinAK
40
posted on
05/03/2013 4:11:32 PM PDT
by
Thom Pain
(U.S. Constitution is a CONTRACT!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson