Friday, May 03, 2013

CELEBRATE THE HYPOCRITICAL KANSAS FIGHT WITH FEDS ON CONSTITUTIONALITY OF GUN LAW NULLIFICATION!!!



Thanks to Kansas politicos who watch too many basic cable TV talk shows, the Constitution is hanging by a thread and everyone is conveniently forgetting about the Supremacy clause in favor of trying to find some way to claim victory over President Obama.

Check this link compilation regarding Kansas picking a losing fight based on a stubborn reactionary ideology that seeks to break the rules rather than take orders from the Black guy in charge.

Fox News: Kansas governor, Attorney General Holder spar over new state gun-rights law

New American: AG Holder: Feds Will Ignore State Laws and Enforce Gun Grab

Kansas First News: Kansas NRA official: Kansans `all in’ for state gun law

Pro Publica: Nullification: How States Are Making It a Felony to Enforce Federal Gun Laws

Reuters: U.S. attorney general says Kansas gun law is unconstitutional

Maddow Blog: Nullification campaign advances in multiple states

Meanwhile . . .

REMEMBER THAT SO-CALLED 'CONSERVATIVES' SUPPORT UNCONSTITUTIONAL NULLIFICATION WHEN IT COMES TO GUNS BUT HAVE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE SIMILAR NULLIFICATION TACTICS IN CASES INVOLVING MINORITY JURIES AND DRACONIAN DRUG CHARGES!!!

In other news, there is no moral high ground remaining in American politics . . . Which makes it a lot more fun.

20 Comments:

Anonymous said...

The rights granted by the 2nd Amendment to keep and bear are not absolute.

Why the legislature would spend so much time and money on this matter is beyond advancing any legitimate interest.

It's a political problem and requires a political solution. If only Kansans were as passionate about their elected officials as they are their university sports programs.....

Anonymous said...

States Rights are not absolute, either.

Anonymous said...

Evidently all our "rights" are suspect to this administration.

Anonymous said...

Why is the second amendment not absolute? So does that mean nothing in the bill of rights is absolute or just the 2nd, to make your argument? My guns are not the problem, get the criminal's guns!!!

Anonymous said...

I am so discriminated against.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/beach-week-draws-black-crowd-and-violence/

Anonymous said...

'well regulated'

Anonymous said...

When your country has been taken over by the few, with no representation of the many, your opinion will not count for a hill of beans, that will be all you are worth. Lovely idea of the koches, get a third world country, make it a murder capital of the world, allow foreign armies to cross our borders unchallenged, re-institute slavery, create a government in their image, must be awful in their eyes, to have decent roads, or competitive education, to look for a future, my god, thats awful...so how do you your new future, slave, you know your ideas of enslavement also include early deaths, because business is also undertaking, which should be easy, dump it in the river.

Anonymous said...

Exactly, a well regulated militia at that. Nowhere does it say that a citizen has the right to own a nuclear weapon.

Anonymous said...

This law goes to the interstate commerce clause. The original intent was for the federal government to only regulate commerce between states - similar to how treaties regulate international commerce. If someone manufactures a gun in Kansas and it doesn't leave Kansas it is not in interstate commerce. Unfortunately the courts have ruled that all commerce is interestate so unless the courts reverse themselves this KS law will fail.

Anonymous said...

For lovers of history and the Constitution, this "state nullification" argument dates back to when Jefferson and Madison told the legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia that they had the right to nullify any federal law they didn't like.

The issue should have been settled with Marbury v. Madison decision in which the Supreme Court stated that the Constitution clearly states that the courts, not state legislatures, are the proper and only forum to decide the constitutionality of laws.

But Jefferson's and Madison's arguments were still used, most famously by Calhoun, during the whole "states right" debate over slavery.

You'd think that if Marbury v. Madison weren't enough, that the Civil War should have settled this "nullification" issue once and for all.

But nope, here it is again.

Anonymous said...

Context, 7:59, context.

Get a clue.
Borrow one if you need.

Anonymous said...

8:05: You need to curb the same-sex oral-anal contact. Your brain is melting from the bacteria.

Anonymous said...

7:44,

Correct. No right, Bill of Rights or otherwise, is absolute.

The US has ALWAYS had gun and arms control. The 2nd amendment has NEVER been interpreted absolutely.

Many other provisions of the Bill of Rights have been limited as well, both by the courts and by the framers.

The most famous example is that Free Speech is limited such that crying "fire" in a crowded theater when no fire is present is illegal. So is inciting a riot, or threatening the president, etc.

The 2nd amendment, which does not REQUIRE a well regulated militia, and in no way suggests that possession of arms is a collective as opposed to individual right, nonetheless is limited, like all rights, by its infringement upon the safety and rights of others.

Clearly, the possession of some arms infringes upon the rights of others to live safely.

The question is merely which arms violate those rights of others.

And there is nothing to prevent background checks, government registration and licensure for firearms ownership, just as there is no constitutional provision to prevent those same things applied to the right to vote.

Anyone who supports voter ID laws (like so many right wingers) should inherently understand this. But since they are blinded by partisanship and ignorance of our constitution, they do often do not.

Marxist invaders have gone too far said...

And soon comes the revolution against tyranny.

Poll: 29% of Registered Voters Believe Armed Revolution Might Be Necessary in Next Few Years said...

A poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind finds that 29 percent of Americans believe an armed revolt will be necessary in the next few years, and 25 percent believe we're not being told the truth about Sandy Hook.

18 percent of Democrats, 27 percent of Independents, and 44 percent of Republicans agreed with the statement: "In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties".

And 20 percent of Democrats, 23 percent of Independents, and 32 percent of Republicans think we're not being told the whole truth about Sandy Hook.

Anonymous said...

Well, to turn your numbers around, apparently 71 percent of Americans don't believe an armed revolt is necessary, and some 75 percent actually believe that 20 kids and six teachers were gunned down at Sandy Hook.

Anonymous said...

El Nacho, When are going to charge Messy hoe for all her bastard wetback children in America? How much more tax payer dollars do we have to pay to illegal anchor babbies and wet backs before we ask dirtville to pay back the USA?

Anonymous said...

Sooo...these right wingers think the 2nd is absolute but did not have a problem at all with the 4th being stomped on by the Patriot Act, signed by Bush and renewed by Obama, and some of them are currently calling to disregard the 6th and the 7th with regard to the Boston bombing suspect. I am really confused, are they for the constitution or against it?

Anonymous said...

So I take it that the constitution is to be interpretated by whoever is in power at the time of the interpretation? Bull Hockey

Anonymous said...

4th amendment is trashed every time they do a worthless dui checkpoint. That exception is also made for "public safety".

If you don't have a criminal record, your 2nd amendment rights won't be impeded.