PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Holder takes on Kansas?


HonestChieffan
05-03-2013, 12:59 PM
Been away from news and TV so maybe this is a repeat. Interesting read however


http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/eric-holder-threatens-kansas-in-letter-on-gun-control-nullification-law/

petegz28
05-03-2013, 01:06 PM
Fuck Holder! Fuck him in the ear!

Amnorix
05-03-2013, 01:08 PM
Holder is pretty obviously right here based on 200+ years of American law. :shrug:

Amnorix
05-03-2013, 01:13 PM
let's take the linked article apart.

1. Kansas is NOT purporting to criminalize the exercise of constitutional federal responsibilities. On the contrary, the bill criminalizes what the state has determined is unconstitutional. It is the position that such federal acts are indeed a violation of the Constitution. No matter how much Eric might believe it to be otherwise, his view is obviously not universal – especially in Kansas.

The state doesn't GET to determine that. Whether a federal law is Constitutional or not is SOLELY within the province of the Courts. We've got cases on that going back over 200 years.

To the degree the correct body, the COURTS, determine the law is unconstitutional, then it goes without saying that it's unenforceable in Kansas. But that's not because of some silly Kansas law, it's because the law itself is unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable.

2. The Supremacy Clause. Holder takes the position that all tyrants do – that everything they do is authorized, anything to the contrary – worthless. But Holder is wrong. The Supremacy Clause doesn’t say that “any law in conflict with federal law” is void. It says that only those laws “in pursuance” of the constitution are supreme. The new Kansas legislation, again, takes the position that such federal acts are not constitutional, and therefore not supreme.

This falls back to the first point. Any state law in conflict with Constitutional federal law is going to be void. The government of Kansas can't decide that by themselves.

Think about the consequences of Kansas's position -- 50 states deciding whether EACH federal laws are enforceable or not. Stupidest fucking idea I ever heard of. What complete chaos that would cause.

The other points are equally irrelevant from a Constitutional law point of view. Maybe they are important for practical enforcement -- after all a law that nobody enforces (or not enough people enforces) will have little consequence in the real world.

Amnorix
05-03-2013, 01:13 PM
Fuck Holder! Fuck him in the ear!


:spock:

You must be Pencil Dick Pete if it will fit in anybody's ear...

Donger
05-03-2013, 01:16 PM
I kind of figured that this Kansas law was really just a protest law. Did anyone really think this wouldn't happen?

Amnorix
05-03-2013, 01:18 PM
I kind of figured that this Kansas law was really just a protest law. Did anyone really think this wouldn't happen?


Seriously. The issue is that I think alot of people think the Kansas law is really and truly enforceable and are rallying behind it.

Kansas needs a law saying that unconstitutional federal laws won't be enforced in Kansas as much as it needs one saying that the sun will rise in the East. So far as it suggests that the government of Kansas, rather than the Courts, gets to decide what federal law(s) are/aren't enforceable, then they're going to lose 9-0 on that one at the SCOTUS, if they even bother to take it up after it gets smacked down in the lower courts.

HonestChieffan
05-03-2013, 01:21 PM
"Think about the consequences of Kansas's position -- 50 states deciding whether EACH federal laws are enforceable or not."

Feds decide what laws to uphold. Is that different? Even cities and states make calls on what federal laws they will uphold.

Looks like Kansas has drawn a line. And if challenged then the courts will resolve it one way or another. Should be interesting to see how it goes down with a state saying they will abide by the constitution and feds pleading that somehow the states cant do so

Amnorix
05-03-2013, 01:48 PM
Feds decide what laws to uphold. Is that different? Even cities and states make calls on what federal laws they will uphold.

There's a fundamental difference between what you are referring to -- which is really spending time/money to enforce laws, and what Kansas is doing, which is saying that EVEN THE FEDS can't enforce these FEDERAL laws in Kansas.

The former -- if Kansas doesn't want to use its manpower to help the feds enforce certain laws, that's well within their prerogative.

But saying "hey, federal government -- you can't send federal agents to enforce these federal laws in Kansas" Yeah, that doesn't work. Not even remotely.

Move it into a different context -- drug laws. Many states aren't really excited about spending time/money enforcing laws against using "minor" narcotics such as pot etc., and have even passed laws allowing their use for medical purposes, etc. And I support that. But Oregon can't tell the feds that ATF/DEA agents can't chase users. That doesn't work. At all.


Looks like Kansas has drawn a line. And if challenged then the courts will resolve it one way or another. Should be interesting to see how it goes down with a state saying they will abide by the constitution and feds pleading that somehow the states cant do so


I'm pretty confident I know how the courts will "resolve" it, because there really isnt' much to resolve. What Kansas is doing is obviously unconstitutional due to the supremacy clause and 200+ years of precedent that states that the COURTS, not the state legislatures/governors, decide what is and isn't Constitutional.

That's the only part that is a problem -- Kansas saying that IT has the power to say "that federal law right there, that's Unconstitutional." Doesn't work that way, and NEVER has in the history of our country. This isn't new. It's simple nullification.

jjjayb
05-03-2013, 02:07 PM
I wonder what discussions people had in the years leading up to the civil war.

cosmo20002
05-03-2013, 02:16 PM
Kansas needs a law saying that unconstitutional federal laws won't be enforced in Kansas as much as it needs one saying that the sun will rise in the East.

We're talkng about Kansas. Much of the state believes that the science isn't completely settled on that yet.

DaveNull
05-03-2013, 02:31 PM
So Kansas passes a bill in response to a boogeyman gun control bill that never actually materialized and is now going to have to spend state resources defending it.

Great governor you've got over there.

BucEyedPea
05-03-2013, 02:45 PM
I would love this to get to the SC under the current court. So that the Supremacy Clause could be more narrowly defined as per original intent. The fed govt's laws are not supreme across the board—ONLY where there is a specific delegated authority. We know the feds are way beyond their orginal federal mandate. Time to reign things in.

Brock
05-03-2013, 04:06 PM
Good thing the state's not going broke.

HonestChieffan
05-03-2013, 04:10 PM
Good thing the state's not going broke.

Is that a good reason to not do the thing you believe is right? The federal government is beyond broke but we continue to hear calls to spend more for all manner of things. Would you support not spending till we get back to some balance?

Brock
05-03-2013, 04:17 PM
Is that a good reason to not do the thing you believe is right? The federal government is beyond broke but we continue to hear calls to spend more for all manner of things. Would you support not spending till we get back to some balance?

Sure, I'd support cutting spending across the board, including all the spending you fake conservatives were doing 5-6 years ago. This law was and is pointless, it accomplished nothing but propping Sam up with people who already liked his backward thinking to begin with. These things cost money, and it didn't accomplish a goddamn thing that this state needs. Of course tards like you think it's a good thing because the guy has an R beside his name.

HonestChieffan
05-03-2013, 04:19 PM
Sure, I'd support cutting spending across the board, including all the spending you fake conservatives were doing 5-6 years ago. This law was and is pointless, it accomplished nothing but propping Sam up with people who already liked his backward thinking to begin with. These things cost money, and it didn't accomplish a goddamn thing that this state needs. Of course tards like you think it's a good thing because the guy has an R beside his name.

Sure you would.

Brock
05-03-2013, 04:21 PM
Sure you would.

Great argument, tard. Anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with you fucking nitwits has to be a liberal.

Brock
05-03-2013, 04:23 PM
Meanwhile, fake ass conservative HCF thinks it's just fine for swat to come give you the bum's rush our of your own home because there might be somebody dangerous in the neighborhood.

petegz28
05-03-2013, 08:42 PM
So Kansas passes a bill in response to a boogeyman gun control bill that never actually materialized and is now going to have to spend state resources defending it.

Great governor you've got over there.

Better than the last one we had which now is helping shove Obamacare down your throat.

Comrade Crapski
05-03-2013, 09:09 PM
Holder came out of his mothers ass.

WilliamTheIrish
05-04-2013, 07:39 AM
We're talkng about Kansas. Much of the state believes that the science isn't completely settled on that yet.

That is just not true.

WilliamTheIrish
05-04-2013, 07:40 AM
So Kansas passes a bill in response to a boogeyman gun control bill that never actually materialized and is now going to have to spend state resources defending it.

Great governor you've got over there.

Klownback.

HonestChieffan
05-04-2013, 02:22 PM
Kobach responds to Holders letter

http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102657032088-83/Statement+

stonedstooge
05-04-2013, 03:51 PM
Kobach responds to Holders letter

http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102657032088-83/Statement+

HAHA Holder gets bitch slapped