On April 25, 2013 a new law became effective in Kansas. The law criminalizes the enforcement of federal gun controls in the state. United States Attorney General Eric Holder said, in a letter to Governor Sam Brownback, “In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.” Attorney General Holder continued by stating, “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.”
Attorney General Holder cites the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law trumps conflicting state authority or exercise of power. The Attorney General is wrong. I can understand that the average American thinks that any Federal Law supersedes conflicting State Law because that is what we were taught in school. There is no excuse, however, for the Attorney General not to know what the Constitution states. He is the number one Law Enforcement officer of the United States Government and has to know “The Law!”
Article VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution says: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” What people ignore is the part that is highlighted “…shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…” Simply stated it means that if a Law, passed in Congress, is not made in pursuance thereof (i.e. Constitutional) it is NOT the Supreme Law of the land and therefore do not need to be followed by the states. To understand this one simply needs to realize that the States and not the Supreme Court are the final arbiters of the United States Constitution.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court being the final arbiter is commonly accepted by the legal community, as they are taught “Precedent Law” and “Case Law” and not what the Constitution actually says and means. When the delegates, from 11 states, met in May of 1787 to, “…form a more perfect Union…”, their goal was to severely limit the powers of the Federal Government but also allowing it to protect the Union as a whole and perform tasks that the States were ill equipped to handle. There were many at the Convention that argued against the establishment of a Federal Court because A Tyrannical Judiciary can strip a man of his Rights faster and more completely than a Tyrannical Legislature. Article III of the Constitution restricts the jurisdiction of the of the Supreme Court and the 11th Amendment (ratified in 1795) restricts that jurisdiction even more. It was Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that said the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review even though it is not mentioned in Article III.
There is a growing wave across this Great Land of States re-exerting their 9th and 10th Amendment Rights and telling the Federal Government that they are not going to follow these Unconstitutional Laws and Mandates. Anywhere from Gun Laws to Obamacare. We have to be vigilant and continue to push forward. It is our responsibility to push the Federal Government back into the Constitutional lockbox. Hopefully it will be before blood spills.
Letter from the racist and unconstitutionalist Holder…
Letter from Kansas to Holder
Kansas tells Holder to KISS THEIR ASSES!
Good for Kansas.
The Snooper Report.
Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
(If you want peace, prepare for war.)
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Death to Tyrants