Kansas SB 102 is similar to MO HP436 in that both cite the 10th, but the Supreme Court has already ruled in Edgar v. MITE Corp, "A state statute is void . . . conflicts with valid Fed statute." Of course, Holder ignores that most important point that neither the Fed nor the State have a dog in the race.
The perjurous AG also neglected to mention established precident in Marbury v Madison as well as Norton v Shelby County:
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Considering that every restrictive law against firearms is absolutely forbidden itself, this situation would be hilarious if not for the willingness of government agents to use lethal force to convince others to submit.
Kansas SB 102 is similar to MO HP436 in that both cite the 10th, but the Supreme Court has already ruled in Edgar v. MITE Corp, "A state statute is void . . . conflicts with valid Fed statute." Of course, Holder ignores that most important point that neither the Fed nor the State have a dog in the race.
ReplyDeleteThe perjurous AG also neglected to mention established precident in Marbury v Madison as well as Norton v Shelby County:
ReplyDelete"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Considering that every restrictive law against firearms is absolutely forbidden itself, this situation would be hilarious if not for the willingness of government agents to use lethal force to convince others to submit.
-PG
As I remarked on Mike's site, Brownback must've nearly busted his gut laughing at that.
ReplyDeleteAnd really, does Eric the Red plan to force Kansas to comply? My, that's a great idea. Don't throw us in THAT briar patch, br'er Holder.