Eric Holder says Feds Will Ignore State Laws and Enforce Gun Grab

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Attorney General Eric Holder has written to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (shown), informing him that the Obama administration considers state attempts to protect the Second Amendment “unconstitutional” and that federal agents will “continue to execute their duties,” regardless of state statutes to the contrary.

The letter, dated April 26, specifically references a Kansas statute recently signed into law by Brownback that criminalizes any attempt by federal officers or agents to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of citizens of the Sunflower State. Section 7 of the new law declares:

It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony.

The right of states to refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal acts is known as nullification.

Nullification is a concept of constitutional law recognizing the right of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.

Nullification exists as a right of the states because the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.

As President Obama and the United Nations accelerate their plan to disarm Americans, the need for nullification is urgent, and liberty-minded citizens are encouraged at the sight of state legislators boldly asserting their right to restrain the federal government through application of that very powerful and very constitutional principle.

Both Attorney General Holder and President Obama are trained lawyers, so one would expect that they have read the Federalist Papers. In fairness, they probably have, but perhaps they overlooked Federalist, No. 33, where Alexander Hamilton explained the legal validity of federal acts that exceed the powers granted to it by the Constitution. Hamilton wrote:

If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]

Holder denies that states have the right to withstand federal tyranny and argues that the Constitution declares federal acts to be the “supreme law of the land.”

His comments echo a common misreading and misunderstanding of Article VI of the Constitution, the so-called Supremacy Clause.

The Supremacy Clause (as some wrongly call it) of Article VI does not declare that federal laws are the supreme law of the land without qualification. What it says is that the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” are the supreme law of the land.

Read that clause again: “In pursuance thereof,” not in violation thereof. If an act of Congress is not permissible under any enumerated power given to it in the Constitution, it was not made in pursuance of the Constitution and therefore not only is not the supreme law of the land, it is not the law at all.

Constitutionally speaking, then, whenever the federal government passes any measure not provided for in the limited roster of its enumerated powers, those acts are not awarded any sort of supremacy. Instead, they are “merely acts of usurpations” and do not qualify as the supreme law of the land. In fact, acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only if they are made in pursuance of its constitutional powers, not in defiance thereof.

Alexander Hamilton put an even finer point on the issue when he wrote in Federalist, No. 78, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.”

Once more legislators, governors, citizens, and law professors realize this fact, they will more readily and fearlessly accept that the states are uniquely situated to perform the function described by Madison above and reiterated in a speech to Congress delivered by him in 1789. “The state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty,” Madison declared.

State lawmakers in Kansas and several other states are catching on, and nullification bills stopping federal overstepping of constitutional boundaries are being considered. These measures nullify not only the impending federal gun grab, but the mandates of ObamaCare and the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), as well.

In light of Holder’s letter, it appears that we have arrived at a time in the history of our Republic when the author of the Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson) and the “Father of the Constitution” (James Madison) are considered enemies of liberty.

In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, Jefferson and Madison declared their allegiance to the union, but insisted that states have the right — the duty — to interpose themselves between citizens and federal despotism.

What Holder fails to appreciate is that the consent of the states created the Constitution and thus created the federal government. This act of collective consenting is called a compact. In this compact (or contract), the states selected delegates who met in Philadelphia in 1787 and conferred some of the powers of the states to a federal government. These powers were enumerated in the Constitution drafted at that convention and the Constitution became the written record of the compact.

This element of the creation of the union is precisely where the states derive their power to nullify acts of the federal government that exceed its constitutional authority. It is a trait woven inextricably within every strand of sovereignty, and it was the sovereign states that ceded the territory of authority that the federal government occupies.

In his letter to Governor Brownback, Attorney General Holder demonstrates that he is as ignorant as his boss as to the proper, constitutional relationship between state governments and the federal government. Accordingly, when Holder threatens to use “all appropriate action” to “prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing federal law,” what he is saying is that he will use any means necessary to prevent the sovereign state of Kansas (and any other state brave enough to take a stand against the federal government) from exercising its right to protect its citizens from federal disarmament.

And, more importantly, by disregarding a legally enacted Kansas statute preserving the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms, the Obama administration is not only ignoring the Second Amendment, but it is also ignoring the 10th Amendment and its restrictions on federal power.

http://spreadlibertynews.com/eric-holder-says-feds-will-ignore-state-laws-and-enforce-gun-grab/

[himher 634]

What federal laws? The ones they have such a challenge passing in the Senate (god help these bills if they ever actually get past the senate to the house)?

[Robby999 1,024]

You would have to be a deaf blind mute to not see this coming I find it hilarious that this guy still has a job at all. If I had sold guns to drug dealers and killers, I would be under a federal penitentiary. I can not believe the administration actually allows this guy to mention any subject at all concerning gun control, giving his total disregard for public safety and his willingness to hand over arms to foreign nationals who intend to use them to harm American citizens.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Federal troops were used to enforce Federal civil rights laws, and nobody but a racist will say that was a bad thing. Perhaps in a few decades when sanity rules instead of gun nutters, we will applaud the use of Federal troops to enforce Federal restrictions on the possession and use of firearms. It was Federal marshals that tamed the wild west by keeping the guns out of the cities, and making them safe places to live, without the threat of firearm violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service#Notable_Marshals

[Robby999 1,024]

That was an interesting article, this paragraph was very interesting also. It seems the Feds have problems policing themselves sometimes!

Racial discrimination

In 1998, Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal (now inactive) Matthew Fogg won a landmark EEO and Title VII racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the Justice Department, for which he was awarded $4 million. The jury found the entire Marshals Service to be a "racially hostile environment" which discriminates against blacks in its promotion practices. U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson summarized the jurors' decision by stating that they felt there was an "atmosphere of racial disharmony and mistrust within the United States Marshal Service".^[23][24] As of 2011, Fogg is president of "Bigots with Badges",^[24] and executive director of CARCLE (Congress Against Racism and Corruption in Law Enforcement), and is also associated with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a drug law reform organization of law enforcement officers.^[25]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service#Notable_Marshals

[himher 634]

Keeping guns out of the cities? You've been smoking. They tracked wanted criminals and took them down and sometimes (quite often) hung them or shot them where they were caught to save the trouble of hauling them to jail. There is no, zero record that they ever interfered with normal, law-abiding citizens.

Which is what they should be doing today.

That is DEFINITELY not the "Eric Holder" marshal service. They aren't interested in enforcing federal law at all. You really think they will be able to enforce this one? Keep smoking.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Keeping guns out of the cities? You've been smoking. They tracked wanted criminals and took them down and sometimes (quite often) hung them or shot them where they were caught to save the trouble of hauling them to jail. There is no, zero record that they ever interfered with normal, law-abiding citizens.

Which is what they should be doing today.

That is DEFINITELY not the "Eric Holder" marshal service. They aren't interested in enforcing federal law at all. You really think they will be able to enforce this one? Keep smoking.

You ever wonder where the term "deadline" came from?

Law and order came riding into town with such respectable law officers as W. B. 'Bat' Masterson, Ed Masterson, Wyatt Earp, Bill Tilghman, H. B. 'Ham' Bell and Charlie Bassett. Out of these personalities evolved the famous fictional character ofGunsmokes' Marshal Matt Dillon. The town these early men knew was laid out with two "Front Streets," one on either side of the railroad tracks -- although the name was orginally "Main Street" for the one north of the tracks.

The city passed an ordinance that guns could not be worn or carried north of the "deadline" which was the railroad tracks. The south side where "anything went" was wide open.

http://www.skyways.org/orgs/fordco/dodgecity.html

[himher 634]

You ever wonder where the term "deadline" came from?

The city passed an ordinance

Duh

See anything about Federal law there? Alrighty then.

Edited May 4, 2013 by himher

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

BTW - Many of these famous marshals began their law enforcement careers in the East, and brought the concept of "gun control" to the towns they helped to pacify.

[himher 634]

BTW - Many of these famous marshals began their law enforcement careers in the East, and brought the concept of "gun control" to the towns they helped to pacify.

Nothing about what you posted even hints at application of federal law to local cities or state laws. Are you sure you are in the right thread?

[Robby999 1,024]

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Nothing about what you posted even hints at application of federal law to local cities or state laws. Are you sure you are in the right thread?

What part of living in a U.S. territory governed by US laws under the jurisdiction of Federally appointed US Marshals and Federally appointed Circuit Judges and Federally appointed Territorial Governors don't you understand?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby...

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution

Federal law trumps state law. Any legislation a state passed that attempts to nullify Federal law is invalid on its face.

[Robby999 1,024]

Judicial review. Article III, Section 2. U.S. courts have the power to rule legislative enactments or executive acts invalid on constitutional grounds. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any court, state or federal, high or low, has the power to refuse to enforce any statute or executive order it deems repugnant to the U.S. Constitution. Two conflicting federal laws are under "pendent" jurisdiction if one presents a strict constitutional issue. Federal court jurisdiction is rare when a state legislature enacts something as under federal jurisdiction.^[c] To establish a federal system of national law, considerable effort goes into developing a spirit of comity between federal government and states. By the doctrine of ‘Res Judicata’, federal courts give "full faith and credit" to State Courts.^[d] The Supreme Court will decide Constitutional issues of state law only on a case by case basis, and only by strict Constitutional necessity, independent of state legislators motives, their policy outcomes or its national wisdom.^[e]

I like this clause better! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

Edited May 4, 2013 by Robby999

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As President Obama and the United Nations accelerate their plan to disarm Americans,

There is a thread already open for this. It's the Tin Foil thread. That's where this paranoid bullshite belongs.