Comment: Seems to me he missed a

(See in situ)

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.