Kansas Governor Signs 2nd Amendment Protection Act

So the governor declares an amendment to the U.S. Constitution will not be enforceable in Kansas? Doesn't he know that it's silly and makes him look ignorant and stupid to say things like that? Doesn't he know that an Obama federal court will overrule him like it has all other things of such conservative nature?

 

Nowhere. Paragraph one takes care of that. Paragraph two has no effect on paragragh one. So like i said, the supreme court called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on that

 

No way dude. I am the one who has precedent on my side on this one. The Judicature of the United States has already established the precedent of the first clause (or paragraph) only being a "position statement" and the second clause (or paragraph) being the "operative" clause (or paragraph).

 

If the SCOTUS rules a law as constitutional then no matter what the state law is, the federal law overrides it. It's a meaningless law. For example several states still ban atheists from holding office in their Constitutions, but those provisions cannot be enforced. This was decided in 1961 in Toscaso v Watkins.

 

Nullification was done in by the Civil War. Those proposing nullification lost, get over it.

 

That's easy, just as soon as the leftists possibly can take them.

Fortunately, fact, rationale and clear thinking have been winning out, so far....

 

Nice of you to be so up front about your contempt for the Constitution.

See above.

Unfortunately, their unenforceability has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Not really, because at least some of the laws the slave states wanted nullified were perfectly constitutional.

 

Was it? I didn't get the memo.

Maybe you should let California know that selling pot is a federal crime. CA even collects taxes from pot sales. Guess the Civil War didn't cover that.

 

It may depend on the law; gun laws are one example that refute your contention.

- - - Updated - - -

They simply "abused" the concept of States' rights; not used it wisely as we are trying to do now.

 

Dude, Article 1, Section 8 specifically enumerates where our federal Congress is delegated the social and police Power to legislate "in all Cases whatsoever".

 

This is plain and simple, meaningless political pandering and posturing.

States do not get to ignore Federal Law even if they create their own law that says they may.

Tell Sam and his pals to stop wasting Kansan's time and money.

 

Correct, but it does establish intent.

 

LOL.....

Kansans tend to be racist, but nowhere like New Mexico
Brownback is trying to turn Kansas INTO Texas. In fact Brownback and Perry seem to have a sorta creepy love affair on going between them.
We already got N. Carolina beat.

 

Dude, take it up with California. Do you exempt them from conversation on purpose for reasons unknown to us?

 

This is simply a campaign stunt.

 

To be sure. They may, however, ignore any statute which is in plain violation of the Constitution, since no provision which has not been enacted in pursuance thereof is legally cognizable by anyone under a constitutional oath, which of course includes all state legislators, executive officers and judges.

 

Maybe you need to talk to Antonin?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/poli...thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119

There is actually NOTHING in the 2nd amendment that ensures your right to avoiding background checks, carrying 30 round magazines, bazookas., grenade launchers, or shoulder fired missiles.

Both the first and second amendments are not without limits. On that, there is plenty of precedence.

 

I voted against prop. 8.

 

Article 6 section 2 of the Constitution

If a federal law passes judicial scrutiny (via SCOTUS) then it will trump any state law that contradicts it.

 

You are familiar with Article VI section 2 of the U.S. Constitution are you not?

 

Tell that to the lefts host of sanctuary cities...

 

I don't need to talk to anybody, because the Constitution is perfectly clear on this point.

I'm sure it looks that way to constitutional illiterates.

They ARE limits - on government, not individuals.

 

Sure, I'm familiar with it, as are most people in this thread. We are also aware how many laws are passed that later get turned around by the Supreme Court. We also know how Federal Laws often pass the execution of the law onto State and local governments and some States are fighting back.

The REAL ID Act is ignored by many states. This Federal Law has no constitutional basis. Some States have openly nullified it.

California openly craps on the fed by making pot sales legal and collecting 100 mill a year in taxes.

The States have more muscle than people would like to believe.

The regulation of trade applies to trade between States and some States are making legal the making and selling of guns and ammo within the State and passing laws that exempt them from federal laws.

There is an avalanche of nullification laws already passed with many more on the way. States are fighting back from a Federal government gone wild. It seems to bother the big government types.

 

I believe our federal Congress should be fixing a shining Standard on a hill for the several States to emulate as best meets the needs of the several States.

 

Since there are several cases regarding Real ID in the courts, and since the current admin has been critical of a number of it's provisions (especially Napolitano) there has been little pressure for it. On the other hand, I live in a Real ID compliant state and in fact had one of the first compliant drivers licenses. When my wife got hers, she was able to use it to get her passport without having to produce all of the other forms of documentation that is generally required, her DL was sufficient.