It's ashame that Holder cannot be impeached. But I don't know if there is enough muster among the American citizenry to do it anyway.....
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > **** > > > http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/05/02/Holder-Threatens-Kansas-Over-New-Gun-Law > **** > > ** ** > Holder Threatens Kansas Over New Gun Law**** > > by Debra Heine <http://www.breitbart.com/Columnists/Debra-Heine>2 May 2013 > **** > > Share This:**** > Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter today from Attorney > General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce > SB102, *the pro 2nd Amendment law Brownback signed into > law<http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/04/18/Kansas-and-Missouri-Pass-Strong-2nd-Amendment-Bills> > * last month.**** > > The new law declares that the federal government has no power to regulate > guns manufactured, sold and kept only in Kansas.**** > > Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the > United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of > the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.* > *** > > The legislation made it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any law, > regulation, order or treaty regulating ammunition made, sold and kept in > the state because the federal government does not “interstate commerce” > authority over such items.**** > > The law became effective only a week ago, but already Holder has leapt > into action, firing off a letter to the governor of Kansas threatening to > take "all appropriate action including litigation if necessary" to prevent > the state of Kansas from protecting the 2nd Amendment. (Amazing for a guy > who didn't even know about his own department's gun-running operation, Fast > and Furious until months after a border patrol agent was killed by one of > its guns.) But when a state passes a law he doesn't like - *this Attorney > General is > FAST!*<http://www.scribd.com/doc/138995467/Eric-Holder-Threatens-Kansas-Over-Gun-Control-Nullification> > **** > > “In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official > acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is > therefore unconstitutional.” **** > > “Under the Supremacy Clause…Kansas may not prevent federal employees and > officials from carrying out their official responsibilities. And a state > certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities. > Because SB102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal > law supercedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their > implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”**** > > Michael Boldin, founder of the *Tenth Amendment > Center<http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/> > *, pointed out the flaws in Holder's reasoning at *Right Side > News:<http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013050232473/us/homeland-security/eric-holder-threatens-kansas-in-letter-on-gun-control-nullification-law.html> > ***** > > 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.**** > > 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.**** > > 3. Historical Precedent. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was a federal law > that basically required all states in the north to act as slave catchers > for black people claimed as property in the South. It’s one of the most > disgusting acts in American history. A number of northern states passed > laws similar to the new Kansas law, criminalizing federal agents for > attempting to kidnap people in their states. Although the feds still > claimed the same kind of authority that Eric Holder has claimed today, they > didn’t have the manpower to enforce. *Read more about that here. > <http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/03/06/personal-liberty-laws-a-nullification-history-lesson/> > *As an aside, if Holder would like to take the position that such > resistance to federal slave laws was wrong, he’s welcome to publicly state > that.**** > > There is also* a precedent to fighting federal gun control > laws<http://www.limaohio.com/news/local_news/article_062320a8-78ac-11e2-90a5-0019bb30f31a.html> > * and winning.**** > > After the Brady bill was signed into law in the nineties, *Arizona > Sheriff Richard Mack sued the Clinton > administration<http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/cpac-2013-sheriff-mack-how-a-constitutional-sheriff-can-protect-your-2nd-amendment-rights-video/> > * claiming the federal government had overstepped its bounds. The case > found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Sheriff Mack won. > > "There's still hope and local sovereignty, state sovereignty, state's > rights is the solution. We've got to have local officials that tell the > federal government there's just a few things you're not going to do here," > Mack said at a gun rights event at an American Legion in Lima, Ohio, last > February. **** > > "If we have local officials, sheriffs and state representatives and > governors nullifying what the federal government is doing it's all proper, > it's all constitutional, and it is completely in line with state > sovereignty and the 10th Amendment." > > "The 10th Amendment guarantees this process that we're about today. Acting > on the powers of the states we can keep this movement peaceful and > effective and put the federal government back where they belong," Mack > concluded.**** > > ** ** > > > __._,_.___ > > > > > > > __,_._,___ > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
