Eric Holder Threatens Kansas

Of course he does. He never saw a thug he didn't like!

 

Here is how you make changes to the Constitution.

Change the Constitution if you can.

 

If the Feds charge anyone in Kansas with a federal felony there's no reason why the jury can't find the accused "not guilty". That will render the federal laws null and void in Kansas because they people won't support them. That's perfectly Constitutional.

 

Liberals have done a complete 180 under the Obama administration


I remember back under bush, liberals fought against government tyranny. Hell they fought against just about everything the government did, and they felt like good rebels doing so.

Now Obama is in office and they're chomping at the bit to drop the hammer on the peons in Kansas who want to keep their rifles


For shame. Once you raged against the machine, now you're part of it.

I hope you hate yourselves, but you don't. You were always oppressors who wanted to impose your beliefs on others, you just never had the power. Until now.


Now the conservatives are the rebels. Now the conservatives are the ones speaking truth to power

 

No, I side with the law. Whether I agree or not. If I object to the law I know I have the right to file suit in court.

 

So, Kanas has republicans putting on political theater. Well, unless you can show me how the federal government is keeping well regulated Kanas militias from bearing arms, this is a meaningless bill.

 

Well, except resist. How oppressive do the Feds want to get? How much trouble do they want?

 

Who cares? Kansas is to what what is mandated by federal law without question. If they have a problem with it take it to court. Otherwise they can shut their racist mouths.

 

Gee, thanks, so insightful. So, as most in this thread know, there are instructions right inside the Constitution as to how to amend the Constitution. But, instead of amending, we have instead, a pile of "Constitutional Laws" that may or may not be Constitutional. There are laws that overreach and impose themselves upon the States in areas not enumerated.

These "laws" are not in pursuance of the Constitution; they are power grabs. The States are within their right to disqualify them. If the Fed has a problem with it they can prove that their so called "laws" hold a candle to our founding document by advancing them through the court system. The burden of proof is on them in my view.

 

Fair statement. Can't fault that.

But, given that those who run the States have sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, they are duty bound to protect their citizenry from laws that are not in pursuance of the Constitution. It is required of them to stand against such laws and make clear, unambiguous, State laws that counteract them. And if you read the laws that the States are putting in place to protect them from an overreaching Federal government, you'll find they are lock step with the Constitution.

 

The problem is that the feds don't get to pick and choose which federal laws they wish to enforce. They are obligated to shut down anything to do with mary jane in those states whether they want to or not. Otherwise, it is nothing less than hypocritical BS.

On the other hand, if a state believes their constitutional rights are being violated by the feds in the case of the 2nd amendment they have the right to stand against them.

 

Chairman MaO'Bama and his leftist loser minions know nothing about the constitution. They want to deconstruct it. And they prefer the UN globalist agenda to our traditions of liberty and freedom and the rule of law. Leftists suck.

 

For the longest time the Feds were pushing the locals to carry out federal law. These days it isn't so easy. It is getting to the point that if the feds want to get things done they have to do it themselves. This is a huge country, a whole lotta ground to cover.

 

Let's say I agree with you. The only thing i'd add is that as opposed to counteracting the laws passed by the Fed, which there is no guarantee that they will be legal, why not use the court system to resolve the issue at hand? Its the system we've used for well over 200+ years now and it appears to have worked well.

 

Yes, it has worked, agreed. It is also cost prohibitive. Non pursuant laws are stacked a mile high. Why should the States have to expend tax payer money to stop the over reaching of the federal government? Why is it their burden to bear? Nullification provides the opportunity for State government to put their voice on record and a no trespassing sign at the State line. It is their duty to do so. States are putting the feds in a difficult position. The feds carry the burden and if they push it strong enough, I'd say court would be the next step. But they will have to push very hard.

Look to CA and the pot issue. They are not backing down and they are collecting 100 million bucks a year in taxes by defying the feds. Who's winning that battle?

 

Until the SCOTUS overturns a federal law on Constitutional Grounds those laws are Constitutional and enforceable. The states do not have the power to nullify them. They can refuse have state law enforcement to enforce those laws, but they cannot use local law enforcement or National Guard to interfere with the Federal Government from enforcing them. To do so will, as it did during the Civil Rights era result in obstruction of justice charges (and convictions) against local law enforcement and federalization of the National Guard as happened several times in the late 50's and early 60's.

 

Racist? Hahahahahahaha
Please tell how defending the 2A in thier state is racist.
This oughta be good.

 

From the OP:

The commerce clause gives power to the fed AMONG the several States, not WITHIN the several States. Therefore, federal intrusion cannot stand as law according to the Constitution. It is not pursuant thereof. And according to the 10th Amendment, unless enumerated, they do not apply. If the Fed wishes, they can take it to court. I don't think they will because it will open a hornet's nest.

Now, if Holder wants to run a sting operation on guns in Kansas, I hope he doesn't make the same mistake he made in Mexico. In Kansas, they usually take the likes of which Holder is made of and turn it in their fields.

 

Why do you believe that? Are you claiming that our Founding Fathers intelligently designed a separation of powers, just for the heck of it?

 

The feds have the power to enforce federal law anywhere within the U.S.. This power does not depend on the Commerce clause.

 

So tell me, how many people has weed directly killed? and Guns?

While I understand your point, valid as it is, the two are incomparable.

 

As violation of the Supremacy Clause is a "does or doesn't" construct, and not a "matter of degree",
justifications are just that, justifications.....that mealy mouthed hypocrites with an agenda hide behind.

 

All laws are applied subjectively. It all depends on how many lawyers you can afford to work on your case. If all laws were applied evenly across the board then Lindsay Lohan would have been locked up long ago.

 

True....but don't scream "supremacy clause!" in regards to abortion or other aspects of progressive agenda (gay marriage?), then scream "10th Amendment!" in regards to marijuana and immigration laws.

sallimsayin.

 

True. It is hypocritical to use it for your cause on one hand, and against someone elses cause on the other. My only argument would be that not all laws are applicable these days (Weed laws are a good example) and as society moves forward, laws that applied years ago don't apply now and should be revisited. I do include Abortion in this category (before someone jumps into ask me whether it does or not).