Hypocrisy: the essences of the Obama Administration.
Of all the irredeemable acts of Obama’s administration, one of the worse is its selective enforcement of the law, or, in some cases, attempting to enforce federal regulations as law. We have an excellent example of the former in the latest kerfuffle. The State of Kansas has passed and Governor Brownback has signed a series of laws that upholds Kansas’ 10th Amendment rights, 2nd Amendment rights, and reaffirms the state’s sovereignty.
Eric Holder says the Kansas law is unconstitutional.
Posted: 05/02/2013 7:31 pm EDT | Updated: 05/02/2013 8:09 pm EDT
Kansas officials are vowing to fight United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s claim that the state’s new ban on federal gun laws is unconstitutional.
Holder wrote Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) in late April that the new law which would prohibit the enforcement of federal gun laws on all guns that are made and stay in Kansas violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause and that the federal government would be willing to take Kansas to court over the law, the Associated Press reported Thursday. In April, Brownback signed the law, which is being described as the most pro-Second Amendment measure in the country. It says that any federal agent who enforces a federal gun law on a “made-in-Kansas” gun would face felony charges.
“Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities,” Holder wrote to Brownback. “And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities.”
On the other hand, Holder has no problem with federal employees not enforcing immigration law, nor failing to support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Eric Holder is not the Supreme Court. He can’t decided what is or isn’t constitutional. There is a process in place to follow for that determination, not a simple fiat from the federal bureaucracy.
Governor Brownback disagrees with Holder’s statement.
Posted by Michael Boldin
Today, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback sent a letter in response to Eric Holder’s direct threat against the state for its new law, the 2nd Amendment Protection Act. It reads, in part:
The State of Kansas is in receipt of your letter in which you place Kansas on notice regarding the view of the Obama Administration concerning the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act.
This first sentence of Brownback’s letter is the most important. Holder’s letter took the position that the new Kansas law is unconstitutional – without question. And because of Holder’s view that he is the decider of all that is constitutional or not in this country, he threatened the state – and thus the People – of Kansas.
Brownback showed quite a bit of savvy with that sentence. He absolutely brushed off Holder by pointing out that his letter only represented “the view of the Obama Administration…”
Just because Eric Holder claims that the Kansas law is unconstitutional, doesn’t make it so. And Holder’s claim that he had no idea about “fast and furious” probably doesn’t make that so either.
Sam Brownback did a great service to the People of Kansas by reminding them that Holder is just sharing his opinion.
He also noted that the Kansas nullification law comes from the source of political power to which no American government is above – the People themselves.
“The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will.”
Eric Holder doesn’t get to tell the People what THEIR constitution means. It’s the other way around.
The entire interchange brings forth a series of questions: If the federal government chooses to enforce one set of law while choosing to not enforce another set of law, should the states recognize the authority of the federal government to enforce any set of law? Does the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the law” equate to equal enforcement of the law? Is the failure to enforce existing law a failure to support that protection?
The final question derives from the above. Is the failure of the federal government, through selective and capricious enforcement of law and federal regulation violate the contract between the central government and the states?
More and more, states are examining that last question. None, yet, have responded. A prudent choice…but at some point, if the federal government continues on its current path, the answer the states may collectively choose, is, “Yes.”