20 votes

Nullification gets an MSM notice

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Imagine the scenario: A federal agent attempts to arrest someone for illegally selling a machine gun. Instead, the federal agent is arrested - charged in a state court with the crime of enforcing federal gun laws.

Farfetched? Not as much as you might think.

The scenario would become conceivable if legislation passed by Missouri's Republican-led Legislature is signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.

The Missouri legislation is perhaps the most extreme example of a states' rights movement that has been spreading across the nation. States are increasingly adopting laws that purport to nullify federal laws - setting up intentional legal conflicts, directing local police not to enforce federal laws and, in rare cases, even threatening criminal charges for federal agents who dare to do their jobs.

more...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IGNORING_FEDERAL_L...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

A poorly written and completely biased article.

I feel dumber having read it.

It would be nice to see some states nullify legal tender laws...

And we can let the free market choose its currency.

http://www.dailypaul.com/289986/gold-vs-bitcoin-free-market-...

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

...their job is to destroy the Second Amendment...

General Welfare Clause:

"Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost
the only land-mark which now divides the federalists* from the republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were
restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action: consequently, that the specification of
powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." Thomas Jefferson

"...criminal charges for federal agents who dare to do their jobs."

...their job is to destroy the Second Amendment...

Live in Liberty
Tom Rankin

Constituion

It is nice to see others understand the Constitution too.
Too bad our elected officials ignorance is so wide spread.

Think Truth...Trust Truth...Rely on Truth!

I’m not quite familiar with the “Or EFF-It Clause”

I especially like the “experts” claim that…

‘Yet "the law is clear - the supremacy clause (of the U.S. Constitution) says specifically that the federal laws are supreme over contrary state laws, even if the state doesn't like those laws," Winkler added.’

Yeah, Right. The founders took the time to lay out a document that attempts to enshrine our basic natural rights but then threw in a clause that basically says, “Or, eff it! Whatever law you feel like throwing out there is cool”.

These people teach in higher education? The supremacy clause only has standing WHEN IT IS IN CONGRUENCE with the enumerated and easily understood powers laid out and granted in the Constitution. That is the entire premise of nullification! Not the caricature of “I just want to smoke pot and get some hookers while paying my child landscaper less than minimum wage, so leave me alone brah” that they seem to have the entire Liberty Movement pinned to.

A look at the actual text makes it clear, the "experts" are full

of it.

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

(emphasis mine)

Federal laws which purport to restrict or prohibit commerce solely WITHIN a state are not in pursuance of the Constitution. Therefore, they are not the supreme Law of the Land. As it is, the "commerce clause" contains the word "regulate" which does NOT mean to restrict or prohibit, but rather "to keep regular." Thus, unless the Federal law keeps guns FREELY FLOWING across state borders, it is unconstitutional on its face. The commerce clause is designed to ensure that states do not erect trade barriers amongst themselves. It was not intended to, and does not give the power to, restrict or prohibit commerce of any sort.

Thanks, just came to post

Thanks, just came to post this. While the article is so ridiculously bias it at least acknowledges what's happening. It's.clear their "expert" either didn't read the laws or is just plain lying about Missouri and kabsas' bills they were specially constructed to comply constitutionally.

Edit: the writer didn't even do research into the Missouri one because the Missouri bill passed by a veto proof majority.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Makes me proud to be a Missourian

Missouri just needs to ease up the pot laws.

me too!

I don't think I've ever been prouder.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

I can't help but to think

that Paul Curtman had something to do with the nullification. I gave money to his campaign for his election based on his 2nd Amendment stance.

Considering he talks about nullificaiton in

a number of areas I'd wager you're right.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

me three

^^

Warning. The AP piece drips

Warning. The AP piece drips with the "330 million of us absolutely must live under one set of rules" mindset.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein