7 votes

The Supremacy Clause: Taking back America without violence

May 14, 2013
By: Ken LaRive

No, I do not have a law degree. But I want my country back. I want states rights to trump unconstitutional powers imposed by a top heavy and tyrannical Federal Government. I want the Patriot Act, and the NDAA abolished, the socialism of Obama-care demolished, and I want no more debt from the Federal Reserve.

As an Oath Keeper, I am looking for a peaceful means of accomplishing this, by rule of constitutional law. I want my civil liberties to be returned to me and my country to again be the light of Liberty. A government who imposes its will on an unwilling populous is an oppressor, and I will resist this with all of my might.

On April 26th, of 2013, the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, wrote a letter to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. It informed Governor Brownback that the Obama administration considers any attempt to protect the Second Amendment an unconstitutional act, and that federal officers and agents will "continue to execute their duties," no matter what any State Constitution indicates. It was a reply to a recent law enacted by the governor that declared:

read more http://www.examiner.com/article/the-supremacy-clause-taking-...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Seems to me he missed a

Seems to me he missed a point:

Yes the supremacy clause puts federal law above state constitutions. But it also puts the U.S. Constitution above federal law

The supreme court itself said, in Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442 :

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

This says to me that, when a purported government official attempts to enforce an unconstitutional law or regulation, he is no longer acting as a government official, but as an individual. As such, he falls under the jurisdiction of the state within which he is acting. If, in his failed claim to be acting in under a non-law, he commits a state crime, the state has as as much power to arrest and prosecute him for his transgression as it does any other law-breaker.

Meanwhile, the state government is acting to uphold the constitution, both the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause (whose weakening via Wickard v. Filburn was mitigated, in the case of some firearms issues, by United States v. Lopez). If Kansas does have to act against a purported federal official attempting to apply a purported federal restriction, tax, or regulation on a Kansas-only firearm or accessory, and Holder brings action in federal court to spring his minion, it will be interesting to see where he claims the Fed derived the power to make the minion's act legal. This may be especially funny since the main way they do an end-run around the Second Amendment is via a tax, and this would involve taxing something not in interstate commerce.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.


Excellent Article

Now, we should fill the in-box of our representatives with it!