Holder cannot be impeached --- but he can be treated like obl. On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 11:31:28 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: > > 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] > <javascript:>>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] <javascript:>. >> 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.
