Holder cites the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which gives supremacy to federal laws over state laws. Kansas, however, is citing the Interstate Commerce Clause, “contending that Washington has no right to regulate guns that were made in Kansas and never cross state lines.”
If that doesn’t highlight some of the contradictions in the Constitution, I don’t know what does. Wouldn’t it be nice if we put in the bloody time to fix such things?
Otherwise, statutes at whatever level do NOT trump the Constitution, treasonous black robes and nazi wannabes notwithstanding.
God grants a birthright to free men .. the Bill of Rights merely sets them to paper.
But owning a gun is a right. It's Constitutionally specific - the same as the right to a fair trial. How could Holder decide the state has no rights because HE says so? Holder has no authority to violate a right. No one in the federal government does - but they're getting way with it because no one is stopping them.
They're doing the same thing with the first amendment. Today, there are words we're not allowed to say because of PC threats and intimidation. In some areas, people would get arrested for using "hate" speech (disagreeing with anyone from a left wing voting block). They're getting away with it because no one is stopping them.
The Second Amendment prohibits ALL federal legislation that infringes on the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. All federal gun legislation is un-Constitutional.
The gun control advocates, usually Democrats, have alternately used the interstate Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause as a way to bypass the clear prohibition for the federal government to enact anti-gun legislation.
The contradiction is not in the Constitution. The wannabe tyrants, mostly among the Democrats, do not want to be constrained to the Article I, Section 8 enumerated powers of the Constitution, nor by the Bill of Rights in the first ten amendments, so they have to imagine and project their tyrannical agenda items through other impertinent parts of the document.
But the feds only have jurisdiction to have a law about something if it is in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. To justify regulation of guns they have to fall back on either the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause. If the feds don’t get their authority from one of those clauses, then the 10th Amendment means the rights are reserved to the people or to the states. So before the Supremacy Clause can even be in effect, the feds have to have express Constitional authorization to MAKE LAWS on that particular issue; otherwise the 10th Amendment specifically says that the states and/or people have the rights and the feds have no say whatsoever.