Kansas SOC response to Eric Holder

Kansas Secretary of State ^ | 5/2/2013 | Kris W. Koback

[JohnKinAK]

Excerpts:

“On April 26, 2013, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Kansas Governor Brownback concerning SB 102, the Second Amendment Protection Act. In that letter, Holder declares SB 102 to be unconstitutional and suggests that federal officials will disregard it. Holder’s understanding of the United States Constitution is incorrect.

As one of the co-authors of SB 102 and a former professor of constitutional law, I ensured that it was drafted to withstand any legal challenge. SB 102 states that a firearm that is assembled in Kansas, that is stamped “Made in Kansas,” and that never leaves the State of Kansas is not subject to regulation by the federal government. It was drafted with the intent to assert Kansas’s authority as a co-equal sovereign under the United States Constitution to regulate a matter that is outside Congress’s jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8. It was also drafted to stave off unconstitutional legislation pending in Congress that not only infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of Kansas Citizens, but also exceeds Congress’s constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.”

"With respect to his concern that federal officials be allowed to enforce federal laws, Mr. Holder’s statement is a curious one. He was evidently not concerned that ATFE officials be allowed to enforce federal law when his agency oversaw the “fast and furious” operation to walk guns into the hands of Mexican cartels.

The State of Kansas is determined to restore the Constitution and to protect the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms."

[Texas Fossil]

Holder declares SB 102 to be unconstitutional and suggests that federal officials will disregard it.

I was under the impression that another of the divided powers of the Federal Government "decides" what is Constitutional and Un-Constitutional. The Court. Now part of the Executive falsely called the "Department of Justice" thinks it does.

[Liberty Valance]

[Vendome]

Pawn’d and Bitch Slapped

[yldstrk]

Go Kobach!

[Cyber Liberty]

SOC? Secretary of Candy?

[yldstrk]

yeah Holder you are wrong only the S Ct can declare the law unconstitutional and it has to go up the chain properly so stfu

[Cyber Liberty]

Not happy with Jan Brewer?

Not particularly, no. Just vetoed a bill to allow use of Silver and Gold as currency in the state of AZ. She is not, and never was, a conservative.

[CA Conservative]

The only problem with the author's argument is that Supreme Court precedent is against him. In a New Deal era decision called Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that wheat that was grown by a farmer for his own family's use could be regulated by the Congress under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The wheat was never sold, and so it never entered into interstate commerce. But the reasoning was that because the farmer grew the wheat for his own consumption, he did not need to buy wheat from someone else - and THAT affected interstate commerce.

So I can easily see how the courts could rule that guns made in Kansas, sold in Kansas and kept in Kansas could affect Interstate Commerce because Kansans would not need to buy from gun makers in other states - and find that those guns are subject to regulation on that basis.

[Jacquerie]

FWIW, the Framers considered and rejected expansive commerce powers in direct opposition to Wickard v. Filburn, here.

[bankwalker]

This is causing quite a stir - making the gun control freaks heads explode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F1nPSNnaBo

only 2 minutes - pass it on after viewing. it is going viral ...

[Paine in the Neck]

That is some letter! I look forward to our AG Abbott taking a similar tack with “Holder” (Ha - no “Mr., no Atty. Gen., just Holder).

[MHGinTN]

Next thing ya know, eric the red holder will be trying to pull a sting on the State of Knasas, for defying his commie powers.

[EricT.]

SCOTUS has been wrong so many times before.

Precedence can KMA. The abuse of the Interstate Commerce clause is a blatant power grab and it will some day result in the dissolution of the Union.

[cardinal4]

I don’t see Illinois governor Quinn doing something like this. In fact, it would not surprise me to see him invite Holder and federal posse to harass gun owners..

[Political Junkie Too]

As one of the co-authors of SB 102 and a former professor of constitutional law, I ensured that it was drafted to withstand any legal challenge.

Silly man.

Only the King can decide what will survive Constitutional challenge, and what is legal or not.

And don't presume to know that what was legal and constitutional then is legal and constitutional now.

"That was a long time ago" is the new legal yardstick to measure relevancy. People said that Obama's words came with an expiration date. Now it is codified by his spokesperson.

-PJ

[Nervous Tick]

Whatever.

You have to try, try and try again — not give up and knuckle under to the tyranny because you “suppose” you can’t win!

God Bless Kansas!

[PGalt]

WOOOHOOOO! HOORAY Kris W. Koback! Thanks for the link to that very good thread (revisited), Jacquerie.

Constitutional BUMP! Federalists/anti-federalists BUMP! FReedom-sovereignty/slavery BUMP!

[Hotlanta Mike]

“The Obama Administration has repeatedly violated the United States Constitution the past four-and-a-half years. That abuse cannot continue.”

[Popman]

This thread made my day...

I used to be amazed at the hubris and unmitigated arrogance emulating from this White House...not any more...it's a daily occurance

They do actually believe they are above the law...

Great to see someone tell them to go pound and and be in their face about it..

[Thom Pain]

BRAVO!!