Nullification-Missouri Style


Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

The Show Me state, has been making news lately.  Unfortunately, the news it has been making has nothing to do with the St. Louis Arch or the baseball Cardinals, but its legislature’s penchant for attempting to nullify Federal laws that it does not agree with.  The State of Missouri is working hard to nullify Federal gun laws and Obamacare.

“If you ever wondered what a 21st century nullification crisis would look like, look no further than Missouri. One hundred and forty eight years after the end of the Civil War, the New York Times reports, “the Republican-controlled Missouri legislature is expected to enact a statute next month nullifying all federal gun laws in the state and making it a crime for federal agents to enforce them.” Meanwhile, the Show Me State is doing everything it can to effectively block implementation of the Affordable Care Act.” Daily Kos

I guess Missouri wants to Show the rest of the nation that the Constitution and its Supremacy Clause is not worth the parchment it is written on.  In case you are not sure what is meant when a State tries to nullify a Federal law, here is a little primer on the subject.

‘ “Nullification was a 19th century theory, identified most closely with South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun, based on the notion that the states created the Constitution and retained the power to determine whether the federal government complied with limitations on its power. This theory has been universally rejected throughout the course of American history by the courts as inconsistent with the Constitution. As the Constitution’s preamble makes clear, ‘We the People,’ not the states, ‘ordain[ed] and establish[ed] th[e] Constitution.’

“The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause provides that federal law is the ‘supreme Law of the Land,’ and Article III of the Constitution gives to the federal judiciary the power to decide “all cases arising under the Constitution.’ States, thus, cannot simply declare that the acts of the federal government are null and void. But, despite the rock-solid arguments against nullification, state governments continue to press the idea that they have the power to treat certain federal laws as null and void. These arguments, while not new, have no basis in the Constitution.” ‘  Maddowblog

What would make the Missouri state legislature think that they had the power to declare acts of the Federal government null and void, when as suggested by the David Gans quote in Maddowblog, the legal arguments against nullification are “rock solid”?  Could politics be at work here?  Is it a coincidence that the nullification “movement” has come to popularity since President Obama took office?

I wish I could say that the nullification attempts are restricted to Missouri.  However, the states of Texas, Kansas, Mississippi and Arizona have all been involved in attempting to nullify Federal laws.  In Missouri, the legislature is attempting to make it a crime for any Federal law enforcement officer to enforce Federal gun laws.

‘ “Like Texas, Mississippi, Arizona and a host of other states, Missouri is seemingly turning to the Confederate Constitution as the law of the land. Hoping to override Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto, Missouri Republicans are aiming at the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause:

Richard G. Callahan, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, is concerned. He cited a recent joint operation of federal, state and local law enforcement officials that led to 159 arrests and the seizing of 267 weapons, and noted that the measure “would have outlawed such operations, and would have made criminals out of the law enforcement officers.”

And not just criminals. As the Times explained, “A Missourian arrested under federal firearm statutes would even be able to sue the arresting officer.” ‘  Daily Kos 

The State of Missouri is attempting to turn the Constitution on its head and at the same time, criminalize the actions of sworn Federal law enforcement officers who are just doing their duty.  I wonder if the citizens of Missouri understand how much money it will spend defending its actions when the Federal government sues the State of Missouri if their nullification plans come to fruition?

The State of Missouri is also trying its darndest to prevent the Affordable Care Act from being implemented in its state.  It is even ordering state officials to not do anything to aid in its implementation.  According to the Daily Kos article linked above, the Missouri State legislature is attempting a “de facto” nullification of Obamacare.

‘ “Along with Arizona, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming, Missouri is refusing to enforce the ACA’s new insurance reforms and prohibitions, such as refusing to cover those with pre-existing conditions, using “rescission” to drop coverage for those who become sick, discriminating against women and setting annual or lifetime benefits caps. And while Colorado, California, Oregon and other blue states are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund thousands of customer service “navigators,” in Missouri “local officials have been barred from doing anything to help put the law into place.” ‘  Daily Kos

Whether the dispute is about gun laws or health care, it seems that Missouri is showing the country that it won’t sit by and watch its citizens get protected by Federal gun laws or Health care systems.  At what point do the hundreds of thousands of Missouri citizens who need health care actually factor into the state legislatures nullification attempts?

When any state has a legitimate beef against a Federal law or policy, it can use the courts to sort out those issues.  However, when the state legislature is relying on a 19th century theory that has been universally rejected by the courts, is that legislature actually working on behalf of its citizens?  Or is it working on behalf of political or corporate interests?  What do you think?

94 thoughts on “Nullification-Missouri Style

  1. Well, Kansas may have a good shot at it. (groan) I think the SCOTUS case Heller, and whichever one it was about the Gun Free School Zone may allow them to extend protections beyond that offered by the Constitution, as interpreted by the Feds. That is how some states have search warrant laws which are stronger than what the Courts permit. A state can give more protections, just not less. What would be a lot more fun, is if there was a state that tried to go around the FEDS, and hold that INTRASTATE electronic communications were off limits to the NSA, CIA, and the FBI. Now that would be fun!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  2. De-facto, if not high Treason and Traitors. Corporate puppeteers being the enemy from within…….

  3. “The State of Missouri is attempting to turn the Constitution on its head and at the same time, criminalize the actions of sworn Federal law enforcement officers who are just doing their duty.”

    OK, show me. I’d love the State of Missouri to arrest sworn Federal law enforcement officers. Please do! Don’t just posture, do it!

    Then this group of dumbass rednecks will discover the true meaning of “nullification.”

  4. The preamble says “we the people” but it was the states that ratified it, not a plebiscite. It was northern states that first did the nullification bit by passing laws that contradicted the federal requirement that “found” property (slaves) was to be returned to “its” owner. Then the southern states, led by South Carolina, introduced their own nullification by seceding. We know how that worked out.

  5. Larry:

    I agree the supremacy of the federal laws in principle yet it is my belief these nullification endeavours are symptomatic of many in the general population becoming increasingly frustrated and angry with the federal government doing what these folks perceive to be heavy handed and over reaching practices. It is necessary to understand that no matter how laudable the obamacare legislation might be it is very unpopular with large segments of the population in various areas of the country. The federal firearms issue is becoming another matter. There are subcultures in our country that view firearms confiscation or over-regulation (or the perception of this) as being both a sign of tyrrany and a means to take away the liberty of these people.

    Those not of this culture reallly need to understand that it is not just a bunch of gun bearing nut cases (as some pundits proclaim these people to be) it is really a litmus test as to whether or not the federal government respects their rights or it does not.

    The politicians in these states are listening to their constituents who are vocal about these issues. If you look in many parts of rural America many there are becoming increasingly hostile toward the federal government. I don’t necessarily mean in a violent sense but they are increasingly looking at politicians at the federal level as being an enemy to their way of life and that they control the federal bureaucracy and agencies to exact their own political goals that are not in alignment with those in rural America. Basically those from rural areas view self-reliance, self-sufficiency and freedom as being a strong cultural value and view programs like Obamacare and certain federal laws as an effort to control their lives and subjugate them. As irrational as some might view this it is often what these folks often believe.

    So what might be happening as an extension is these people then cling to their state’s environment as being a protector of their culture or way of life and the pols there feed into this and promse them protection from the counter-cultural federal government which is perceived to be against that the rural way of life.

    It might also be a symptom rather than the illness.

  6. I’m with Bob Kauten on this. I would like to be a fly on the wall the first time some officer tries to arrest an ATF agent for enforcing a Federal law. You could sell tickets to that.


    Political intelligence firms set up investor meetings at White House
    By Tom Hamburger,May 26, 2013

    Wall Street investors hungry for advance information on upcoming federal health-care decisions repeatedly held private discussions with Obama administration officials, including a top White House adviser helping to implement the Affordable Care Act.

    The private conversations show that the increasingly urgent race to acquire“political intelligence” goes beyond the communications with congressional staffers that have become the focus of heightened scrutiny in recent weeks.

  8. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause provides that federal law is the ‘supreme Law of the Land,’ and Article III of the Constitution gives to the federal judiciary the power to decide “all cases arising under the Constitution.’

    The U.S. Constitution, as amended and as defined by the Supreme Court, is the supreme law in this country.

    Federal legislation, when it complies with the U.S. Constitution, is supreme over state law.

    Would a 42 USC § 1983 action lie against these legislators who under color of state law will have violated the constitutional or federal rights of citizens by making it a crime to use those rights?

    That statute reads:

    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress …

    Or would “legislative immunity,” absolute immunity (a judicial notion) prevent such an action?


    Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job

    Few people embody the corporatist revolving door greasing Washington as purely as Elizabeth Fowler

    Whatever one’s views on Obamacare were and are: the bill’s mandate that everyone purchase the products of the private health insurance industry, unaccompanied by any public alternative, was a huge gift to that industry; as Wheeler wrote at the time: “to the extent that Liz Fowler is the author of this document, we might as well consider WellPoint its author as well.” Watch the five-minute Bill Moyers report from 2009, embedded below, on the key role played in all of this by Liz Fowler and the “revolving door” between the health insurance/lobbying industry and government officials at the time this bill was written and passed.

  10. Felix:
    I see what you are doing. Thread hijacking. Trying to derail rational discussion on the subject of Mr. Rafferty’s story?

    Psssst…this story is not about medical care, the ACA or stock trading. It is about the Missouri legislature trying to pass a law that is in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Pandering to the lowest common denominator voter.

  11. OS
    from the first paragraph. An apology from you is in order

    “The State of Missouri is working hard to nullify Federal gun laws and Obamacare.”

  12. The nullification of Obamacare began in 2009. The nullification of new and sane Wall st regulations began in 2009.
    Crony capitalism, Corporate greed, Wealth transference to the 0.1% are nullifying the middle class.
    It would be more appropriate if the US flag had one huge dollar sign on it.
    Then I would understand how this crop of sycophants keep getting voted into office. Government Of For and By the rich.
    The sleeping middle class is nullifying themselves.

  13. OS. If that’s true I may have been hijacked too. This thread is based on Missouri, however the involvement of ALEC in shaping and leading many legislation policies within states certainly does factor into the developing mindset of Missouri voters. The Show Me state is not independent and alone on attempts to nullify Obama care or gun restrictions.
    ALEC and the NRA are certainly integral in the rise of individual States practicing “Throw the twisted Spaghetti against the wall legislation”.
    Every time they get some noodles to stick, other Alec states rush to stick it on their walls too. Missouri is not alone in this effort.

  14. So is there a duel at dawn when the sad sack Missouri officer goes to arrest FBI/DEA/ATF agents probably even more heavily armed than usual as they venture into Missouri territory?

    Is there absolutely any precedent in history of a federal officer shooting a local officer in self defense? I can’t imagine any federal officer would willing succumb to the orders of the local Barney Fife.

  15. ** Is it a coincidence that the nullification “movement” has come to popularity since President Obama took office?**

    Good Day Rafflaw:)

    Come on Please, enough already playing that Race Card Crap, if people keep it up I think I’ll just start putting in the middle of reverse racism jokes & poke fun at the… LOL

    So two racist walked into a bar & then Al Sharpton turn & said to rafflaw. LOL :)

    I just hat the SoB for his American Hating Policies, just as I did with Bush, Clinton, GHWB, Ronnies Gun…

  16. Ok rafflaw,

    Let’s attempt to work through your article & perfect it so none of us are left confused.

    The Supremacy Clause & the Court’s Rulings are of no effect & null & void if the law is Unconstitutional & it’s an illegal court ruling or if the Supremacy Clause is being used as a pretest to enforce an illegal law.

    IE: Bush vs Gore.

    IE: 2nd Amd: Shall not be Infringed

  17. Larry the argument of “We the people” clause of the consitution is no longer based on reality. We the people no longer have any input into a corrupt political system that is gamed by those that can afford it.

  18. Maybe you can correct me?

    I believe the Federal Govt only has 18-19 explicit duties to perform.

    And none of those duties include harassing citizens over their “Rights” ,the 2nd included, or Health Care insurance.

    Yes, maybe your a kind person like many of us & wish to see the sick & injured cared for, but it is None of the Federal Govt’s Phk’in Business. :)

    Supremacy Clause, General Welfare Clause, Interstate Commerce Clause… when the courts illegally use those clauses as a means to grab Federal Authority that the Govt has no Right to, those judges need removed!

    In the article 2 other legal remedies for the People & the Sovereign States to use to correct their grevences, the 1st is a Constitutional Convention, which scares the he’ll out of me, & the 2nd the due process of Amending the US Constitution.

    An example of Amending the USC would Amd XXZ: Upon passing 9/8/2013 the Supreme Court of the USA is here by dissolved & from here after has no authority to decide Law…

  19. rafflaw,

    Missouri sheriffs, police chiefs, latest to oppose bill nullifying federal gun laws
    In Backroom
    By Jo Mannies, Beacon political reporter

    The Missouri Sheriffs’ Association has become the latest law enforcement group to announce its opposition to HB436, also known as the “gun nullification bill,” leading to what some sources say may be a surge in such announcements over the next few days.

    (Update) In fact, the Missouri Police Chiefs Association followed suit later Friday, saying that if Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of the bill is overridden next week, the new law “will call in question Missouri law enforcement’s ability to work in cooperation with their federal counterparts and impede local law enforcement’s ability to enforce existing laws.” (End update)

    The sheriffs’ association – particularly influential in rural Missouri — announced early Friday that the bill “violates the sheriff’s oath of office.”

    The vote by the sheriffs’ board on Thursday was unanimous, said association executive director Mick Covington. The sheriffs’ association is made of all 115 sheriffs around the state.

    HB436, which would nullify all federal gun laws and bar their enforcement, was vetoed weeks ago. Until this week, the measure had appeared likely to be overriden when the General Assembly begins its veto session Wednesday.

    But since Tuesday, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster – who is running for governor in 2016 – and the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police have come out strongly against the bill. They believe that the bill would threaten public safety, cause legal problems for law enforcement offices and result in the loss of federal money.

  20. Correct me if I’m wrong,

    but I believe there were no issues at all/or very few with the 2nd Amd or Fed gun laws until a case was brought against a thought to be criminal just up the road in this area, outside Claremore Oklahoma & he was charge with possession of a sawed off shotgun around 1930’s.

    The 1st 2nd Amd case.

    And Federal LE had very few troublesome issues from 1776 til the 1920-1930s when they started interfering into the Sovereign State’s, County Sheriff’s domain of LE.

  21. I live in Missouri and I knew people like the ones in the video below. Some of them were in-laws. It’s Mississippi in the vid but once you get into some of the small towns in Missouri, as I have….

    A Republican candidate for the Missouri Legislator, Marsha Haefner, a sitting Representative, called last Wednesday or Thursday as part of a telephone town hall. Telephone town halls are just extended campaign ads IMO.

    I stayed on the line to see what would be said and she launched into a long introduction laying out the successes of the Legislature and her and the Republican majority’s plans for the next session. I stayed on the line until I was in danger of hyperventilating from the cultural dissonance. Our Legislature, and Ms Haefner is an adequate representative of the majority, is just plain nuts and as well, mean spirited.

    It really makes me angry that these nutters are going to squander what little money the state has with the need to argue some of their ‘reforms’ in court.

  22. ** They believe that the bill would threaten public safety, cause legal problems for law enforcement offices and result in the loss of federal money. **

    Elaine M.,

    Are there no long any laws that the state can use, say like RICO, to protect the state’s/county’s interest from the Federal Govt’s bribery of State/County Officials or the Extortion of the same by their threats of withhold fed funds?

    Maybe Missouri counties need 115 Grand Juries to take a look at Federal Govt attempt to corrupt/bribe state/county officials?

    This is how one starts here in Oklahoma:

  23. Don’t forget the repressive, Jim Crow voting laws being enacted in North Carolina. And don’t be shocked to realize that there are still millions of right wing tin-hats who think Obama is a Muslim (1 in 6) not an American born in US (55% of GOP) and satanic (13% of voters). (It would get messy if I added links.)

    The GOP/Tea Party prefers only their tainted version of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Any gun law is too much to bear, but if you want to curb free speech or freedom of the press, then go for it (Occupy).

    These attempts to ignore Federal laws shouldn’t be surprising. The GOP has the 21% solution working quite well. If only 40% of eligible voters cast a vote, then GOP wins with 21% of that vote. Their voters are more issue oriented and can be easily manipulated into voting against their best interests (What’s the Matter with Kansas).

    Those who were once considered fringe are now the party in power in many states. That tide won’t turn until more voters vote, but with Dancing with the Stars having more meaning to most Americans than voting, that change will not happen in the near term. Be prepared for more right wing lunacy. (Not that squeamish, conservative Democrats are more preferable. The two-party system is broken and needs repair)

  24. I meet this guy in person , Jason Rink is the Director and Producer of “Nullification: The Rightful Remedy”, maybe he was scared to death at the time of how his doc would be received by the public, don’t know, but regardless of his demeanor his doc have some points.

    Nullification The Rightful Remedy the Documentary

  25. **voltaic 1, September 8, 2013 at 10:29 am

    Don’t forget the repressive, Jim Crow voting laws **

    At some point in time you people might wish to move beyond your personal Racism & realize the battle is between “A Republic form of a democratic gov’t” vs Caste System…a Dictatorship…a Monarchy with a Royal King/Queen sitting on a thrown.

  26. I’m with Darren on this issue….

    Plus when you have the CIC and the Sct turning the constitution on its head… You gotta expect a reaction like this…..

  27. ** I got in touch with David Gans, the director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center. Gans is also the former program director of Cardozo Law School’s Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy and a former NYU law professor.

    So, what’s nullification and why is the right re-litigating a discredited argument? **

    So far, so good. But what about measures like the one pending in Kansas?

    “Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to enact nationwide gun laws. Kansas cannot limit the scope of these laws on the theory that the guns are only manufactured within state lines. **

    So there you have it, this Law School Tool falslye claims the Commerce Clause of the USC trumps then 2nd’s “Shall Not Infringe” Clause of the USC.

    In your dreams buddy, your position will continue to be defeated, give it up or remain out of favor with the knowing public & out of political Power!

    Even most Democratic Party members do not support his contortions of the USC.

    And Everyone now sees Obama is a Liar!

    ** Obama 2008: “I Am Not Going To Take Your Guns Away” **

    At some I hope some of you people will stop wasting my & millions of other’s Valuable time crawling through & re-chewing all these damn Fake Wedge Issues Crap.

    If you have any hopes at all at making political progress in this country you have to give into the truth of the times in which we live.

    Say you’re concerned about someone like Rand Paul winning the Prez in 2016.

    Start now by helping him pass into law everything he’s saying that you agree with & remove that issue from the table.

    You support the USC’s “Bill of Rights” don’t you?

    Well, help Sen Paul correct that issue & take the table now.

    You can still attack over the Koch Brothers type issues.

  28. Think about the current political dynamics of right now, today.

    This coming 2014 Spring, 6 months from now all around the nation political primaries will be holding votes for Sheriffs, Governors, State & Federal Reps.

    Currently many congressional district have been gerrymandered that they are either Democratic or Republican Strongholds in which it’s almost a certainty the Strongholds political party will win the seat.

    The only contest will likely be in the Primary, whomever wins the Spring primary wins the seat by default in the General election.

    Whatever policies/laws that are being pressed for/voted on by our Reps this Fall/Winter will be used by the public to decide how they will vote on new Reps come Spring.

    So what you are supporting now could help or hurt your long term political objectives longer term.

    Here in Oklahoma, because cross party voting isn’t allowed I’ll have to go down & once again re-register as a Republican if I wish to have any vote counted at all since Oklahoma is a Republican Stronghold.

    There are certain elements of the Repub Party that are so distasteful to me, (AKA Bush Family), that a fear I’ve long held is that I die before I can get back & re-register as an Independent after the electronic voting (S)election.:)

  29. Why is this a big deal? The Feds just announced that they will not prosecute certain crimes involving marijuana in the states that have effectively nullified federal law in that area. Given that it worked there, why shouldn’t the people of a state try it in other areas of law?

  30. What happened to the idea that the Constitution is living? If it is living, picking up on the thrust of D. Smith’s comments, it is not unreasonable for some people to conclude that these changes are in order.

  31. Hooray for Missouri! Has everyone forgotten that the constitution strictly limits the powers of the federal government, and leaves ALL but those strictly detailed powers to the STATES? Nowhere does the constitution grant the power to control healthcare to the federal government. And the SECOND AMENDMENT allows congress to make NO LAW infringing our right to keep and bear arms. And CONGRESS makes law, Not the executive branch. The entire constitution has been trampled in order to allow these attacks on our liberty!

  32. How is this different from those states which have recently chosen to make the recreational use of marijuana legal, which also is in opposition to federal law?

    Apart from the fact that the DoJ has recently declared that it will go along with such laws, at any rate…

  33. Oky1,

    OK, I’ll correct you. The states are not “Sovereign.” Your arguments go downhill from there.

    You’re welcome.


    OK, change the Constitution. There’s an app for that.

    The states which passed lenient marijuana laws did not advocate arresting federal officials who enforce federal law.
    The state legislators who passed marijuana laws were not dumbass redneck poseurs.
    The good ol’ boys ‘n’ gals in MO need to tell it to the National Guard. Mirth will ensue.
    The local sheriffs will say, “You want me to do WHAT?”

    No, really, I wanna see this.

  34. I also cannot see it being the case where every local and state officer goes out and hooks up ATF and other federal agents due to this state law. Maybe there might be one or two, but more than that I doubt and I even doubt the one or two.

    I know on TV cop shows, the source of most things politicians think they know about law enforcement, characters often get into turf wars between the city and the feds and there is animosity between the two. But that is not the case in the real world. It is almost always where a local agency is glad to have the feds come in and take over a case. Then it’s the feds issue and the locals don’t have to deal with it any more. Plus, the federal laws often bring more prison time and most cops like it when some problem hoodlum is taken out of their city and you don’t have to deal with him either.

  35. “OK, change the Constitution. There’s an app for that.” As Gene Wilder said: It’s alive! No app required, only a judge.

  36. For all those American Haters just stop & consider what would happen if you did away with the 2nd Amd..

    You would be hampering Darwin’s Theory, God or Mother Nature from cleansing the Gene Pool! :)

    Assuming the “Cougar” was 17 when see had the kid she’d be 28 now & without a Stud Muffin.

    And clearly the guy wasn’t smart enough to own a gun. I guess they should sue the govt for that because of the Rat Poison in the Water & the toxic vaccines?

    By Tina Terry


    An 11-year-old girl accidentally pulled the trigger of her stepfather’s gun, hitting and killing him, according to Cleveland County Sheriff Alan Norman.

    The accident happened Friday night on Lemmons Road. The sheriff said the stepfather, 19-year-old Bryan Scott Reno, had bought the gun Friday in Rutherford County and was showing it to the girl.

    “He was basically just looking at the firearm and telling his 11-year-old what he had purchased and actually handed her the gun to let her experience the new firearm,” said Cleveland County Sheriff Alan Norman.

    Norman said Reno had removed the gun’s clip, but a round was still in the chamber. The little girl pulled the trigger and fired a deadly shot at her stepdad.

    “Mother was in bed, was summoned by the 11-year-old. The mother actually placed a 911 call,” Norman said.

    Deputies said the girl needs prayer and support to face the days ahead.

    “She’s naturally extremely, extremely upset. There are going to be some trying days for her from last evening until only the Lord knows when,” Norman said. **

  37. mahtso,

    That’s what they did with the Bush Mafia, impeachment, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity Are Off the Table…They said…

    That’s what they did with the Corrupt Criminal Mafia Wallst/City of London Banks/Insurance Co’s….. DOJ/Lanny Brewer(sic) Holder… Yes, they admit Large bank/Insur scum are laundering money for known terrorist & drug kingpins but they are strategically important infrastructure so DOJ is going to continue to allow them to commit ever type of criminality imaginable.

    They by executive fiat illegally canceled the USC’s “Bill of Rights”!!!

    Animal Farm Law by default!

    They’ve Jumped the Shark, there is no more Rule of Law, what we have is Rule by Dictatorship.

    And they’ve declared war on “We the People”‘s govt.

    They don’t consider us strategically important infrastructure, they use more like a parasite sees it’s pray, something to feed upon til the host dies.

    Many in LE/Military have & are figuring out those same parasites are feeding on them & their families also.

    Remember that Pension Plan the Govt promise, below coming to the USA sooner then you think & already here in a few places.

    **UPDATE 2-Poland reduces public debt through pension funds overhaul

    Wed Sep 4, 2013 12:56pm EDT **

  38. Here is the proof that our education system run by a federal system does not work for the people.

    “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united STATES OF AMERICA and to the REPUBLIC for which IT STANDS”

    How many students realize that the USA flag stands for all 50 state flags?
    That the states have the POWER?

    That Federal Government only has the power that was delegated to it by Congress and the Constitution for the people to do commerce between the states on behalf of the people?

    The states can manage their own education system (needs are different in different parts of the country). Welfare & Medicaid is best handled by the states, to assure honesty and help. The people are generous and caring when there is real need. With all the community centers and churches, there should be soup kitchens for truly needy people.

    If the Federal Government was removed from interference with families through CPS, TV propaganda, CAPTA and all the agency’s that alienate the children from their parents without just cause, this country would start becoming superior again, not just great. People would strive to do better, to better their families the American way.

    The Federal System is criminalizing our people for REVENUE & profit – which is tearing our families apart. The people have the right to nullify bad law and any codes, rules, and regulations that go against the Constitution.

    Government Administrators, judges, public employees are just people who swore an Oath to the people they represent, to do their job and follow the constitution and laws of the people. We need to put limits on all terms, nothing is forever! We need the people alerted when a public employee has failed his Oath of office. It has to start locally with you!

  39. “I guess Missouri wants to Show the rest of the nation that the Constitution and its Supremacy Clause is not worth the parchment it is written on.

    gw bush said that the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

  40. Reblogged this on veritasusa and commented:
    But what recourse is left, when the Federal government, which has grown into the monster the framers feared, complete with an all powerful executive, and corrupted by corporate influence, ignores the Constitution and rides roughshod over the Bill of Rights, while SCOTUS fails in its responsibility to be the guardian of the peoples rights? I believe the States rightfully attempt to protect their own citizenry and guard against over reaching Federalism. The only truly representative government is, after all, local government.

  41. LC in Texas,

    I hardly know where to begin.

    I thought you said something about the United States of America. I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
    I live in that country. I assure you, it’s nothing like what you describe.
    Did you get the name of the country wrong? Seems unlikely.

    You mentioned the “American way.” North or South America?
    Maybe you’re referring to Canada? That’s North American.
    Is “America” the same as the oft-referenced “Merka”?
    Merka shares a border with Oz, right?

    Work with me here. I’m trying to make sense of this.

    Finally, can I get some of whatever you’ve been smokin’?

  42. The USG is using the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for toilet paper. This bit of rightwing asshatery is a distraction. We’re all in danger under a criminal government.

  43. LK,

    I’m thinking that they’d probably be a better shot than most law enforcement…. But that’s funny if they really do it…. I can see he implications…..

  44. Lotta

    The blind being issued gun permits; an interesting issue from a constitutional point of view. There is a second amendment right to carry those and the sheriff is not allowed to discriminate on account of disability for constitutionally protected activities. It is different from driving, which is not constitutionally protected.

    Several states are “Shall Issue” states where the issuing authority cannot deny a permit if the applicant is legally able to have one. I never thought about it before but in our state the local LE agency cannot deny a permit to a blind person either. In fact, the agency is mandated by state law to assist the blind applicant complete the application form if they request.

    The requirements are that they are not prohibited from carrying a weapon by state or federal law, that they are 21 years of age and they reside in the jurisdiction. And that they have not had a CPL revoked recently. That is all. Nothing is said about blindness so they are good to go here.

  45. So what you are saying is that the founders wanted a country “Of the People, By the People” to have every single solitary decision made by 5 well connected black robed lawyers who are appointed to lifetime seats by the closest office we have to a dictatorship

    ^^Read that twice and let it sink in a little.

  46. Sally,
    I read your assertion 5 times, to let it sink in. I then searched rafflaw’s article for that passage, or anything implying it.
    No, rafflaw’s article never said, or implied, that.
    It’d be quite a stretch to infer that, from the article.

    Did you read the same article?

    The supreme coup does not make every single solitary decision. Cases are submitted to it. In only some of those cases, the supreme coup makes a ruling. A disastrous one, frequently.

  47. Hi Darren, “There is a second amendment right to carry those and the sheriff is not allowed to discriminate on account of disability for constitutionally protected activities.”

    except that rights for the disabled are not all encompassing, at some point even business is let off the hook regarding accommodation if it becomes unreasonable and burdensome. As I recall the standard is pretty high but it’s there.

    In your state are there any prohibitions due to mental defect or illness? People suffering from those limitations are similarly protected as a sub-class within a class.

    At some point it seems to me that common sense restrictions on gun ownership need to be put in play. Many states will not issue a gun license to ex-felons. That seems to me to be unconstitutional. If you’re an ex-felon and you paid your debt to society why would you not be issued a gun permit like any other citizen? Same for voting. The selective limitation of certain rights is not alien to our country.

    Not arguing with you, just wondering.

  48. I have another take or slant on Mizzoura. Having lived there in a prior life prior to being a dog, I practiced law. Mizzoura is Unreconstructed. Oh? What does that mean Mister Labrador, you might ask. Well, after the civil war some former slave states refused to adopt, recognize or abide by the 14th Amendment. They try their best to not abide by the 15th Amendment. And if they could go back to slavery days then the 13th Amendment gets not quarter.
    The implications of being Unreconstructed go to issues like a fair trial in a criminal case. There is federal jurisprudence which states that there must be a minimum amount of evidence to support any conviction. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt on each element of the offense. This is supposed to be recognized by an appellate court when reviewing a conviction and the appellate court is not supposed to rely on the genius of a jury when they decided facts. But, Mizzoura held in a case called State v. Samuel Freeman that all that rubbish is by the wayside, The Missouri Supreme Court in a decision by Judge Mary Rhodes Russell holds that We Know It When We see It is a good standard of review. Samuel Freeman is not a free man. Mizzoura is Unreconstructed. It is damn near a Pirate Territory. Fly over and flush.

  49. Just because the federal government passes a law or regulation does not mean that the States must obey it. The laws must be Constitutional. Ultimately, when the federal government orders a State official to do something contrary to the Constitution, the State has a duty to the people of their State to disobey the federal government.

  50. david,
    If the Feds pass a law and the courts uphold that law, the States must obey it. What you are suggesting is for the States to break the law. The states can litigate any issue that they want to challenge, but they do not have the legal right to break the law once the courts have spoken.

  51. rafflaw,

    Maybe that’s what they teach down at Commie/Nazi Law School, but you’re wrong!

    States & citizens are obligated by the intent of the founding docs to disobey unconstitutional laws no matter if it’s even the Supreme Count claiming the unconstitutional law is constitutional.

    You & others may not like the states method by using nullification but they are well within their rights to do so.

    What’s Professor Turley’s opinion on what states & citizens should do for recourse when the Gov’t/courts are clearly shown to be corrupt & outlaws?

    ie;Bush v Gore, John Yoo’s Tortured Memo…..

  52. david,
    Is this your attempt at comic relief?
    Sounds like you studied law at the same school I did (I didn’t).
    The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court is the final judge of Constitutionality.

    It’s unConstitutional for a state to decree that a federal law is unConstitutional. A state may contest any law in court.

    No, you cannot just decide that federal law doesn’t apply to you, and decree that anyone enforcing federal law will be arrested.
    Why in the world would anyone need to explain that to you?

    You guys tried that one, before. How’d that work for you?
    Need to be schooled, again?

  53. As I understand it everything Hitler & his Nazis did was legal under German law at the time.

    I guess you boyz must have missed the fact that they hung a bunch of the SOBs at Nuremberg.

    Because what you’re claiming is that if VP Dick Cheney was having a dinner party in the WH basement & needed is nightly CCTV entertainment you would comply, under John Yoo’s Tortured Memo, & take a pair of pliers & crush a 10 yr old boy’s balls in front of his dad to get him to confess to whatever. (I can’t recall all the details of that case)

    Now I realize I’m not the best person to be explaining to you boyz the facts of life, but my words should be clear enough for you to get the point that you & the States are Legally/ethically compelled disobey unconstitutional court rulings.

    We in the USA are about 3 years past the moment the Govt got the msg out that the states/citizens can just “Go eat Cake”, so we’ll all see together how future events shake out.

  54. Lottakatz

    In our state here, the mental illness would apply as a restriction because federal law mandates that those judged to be mentally ill are prohibited in possessing this. But that can be reversed by a court order and the person may be allowed a concealed pistol license afterward. The same applies with sufferage (voting rights) and restoration of firearm rights by ex-felons who may petition a superior court judge after 7 (?) years post conviction.

    I can see what you are saying about your concern for someone who has a dangerous mental disorder having a concealed pistol license (or a firearm for that matter) but it is arguable if being blind constitutes the same nefarious threat to society as a blind person being able to possess a concealed pistol. Carrying a a firearm is a civil right in Washington.

    Article 1 Section 24 of the state constitution reads: RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

    Washington state does not have a firearms proficiency requirement to obtain a concealed pistol license. So the government lacks the authority to deny a CPL based on if the applicant cannot see a target when shooting. BEcause of this if the sheriff or chief of police denied a CPL for this reason it would be construed as arbitrary and unlawful by the courts.

    Additionally, the state has laws for disabled hunters. It is illegal for an able bodied hunter to shoot game from a motor vehicle or within a certain distance of a public roadway. But a disabled person may apply for a disabled hunter permit that allows the accomodation with the vehicle.

  55. Best I can recall one of the persons hung at Nuremberg was German’s equivalent to the US’s Chief Justice of the Supreme Court & was hung to make a point of law regarding people/govts enforcing Supremacy.

    Judgment at Nuremberg

  56. Oky1,
    “Because what you’re claiming is that if VP Dick Cheney was having a dinner party in the WH basement & needed is nightly CCTV entertainment you would comply, under John Yoo’s Tortured Memo, & take a pair of pliers & crush a 10 yr old boy’s balls in front of his dad to get him to confess to whatever. ”
    Are you all right?
    Do you read the things that you write?

  57. Bob do you really have any idea how many people are viewing your & rafflaws comments?

    And I’ve a pretty fair idea what most of them are thinking, but it’s late & that gives rafflaw time to attempt to clean up his position on a number of issues.


  58. Additionally, the state has laws for disabled hunters. It is illegal for an able bodied hunter to shoot game from a motor vehicle or within a certain distance of a public roadway. But a disabled person may apply for a disabled hunter permit that allows the accomodation with the vehicle.

    i guess that’s right, there is no legal obligation to track and finish a wounded animal.

    but damn

  59. Humm…nullification on gun law… ANd fundamental healthcare ?? That’s all you want ??? Ok, here”s the deal for nullification… If you want to have to abide by ZERO federal gun law in Missouri, then the way you do that is leave the guns here and YOU leave…AMF.


    HOORAY !!!

  60. Darren: “I can see what you are saying about your concern for someone who has a dangerous mental disorder having a concealed pistol license (or a firearm for that matter) but it is arguable if being blind constitutes the same nefarious threat to society as a blind person being able to possess a concealed pistol. Carrying a a firearm is a civil right in Washington. …. It is illegal for an able bodied hunter to shoot game from a motor vehicle or within a certain distance of a public roadway. But a disabled person may apply for a disabled hunter permit that allows the accomodation with the vehicle.”

    **LOL, well thank Dog they can shoot from vehicles and close to roadways too! Blind people with guns, what could possibly go wrong? LOL, I am truly amused by this but it still gets filed under the heading of ‘the law is an ass’ IMO.:-)

    I know about the petitions for ex-felons, I’ve been reading about that. It seems that some states make those petitions hard to comply with using added requirements. Florida comes to mind from my reading. I’m more digital on the question: once the prison door slams shut as one walks out or the parole officer/probation officer checks the ‘completed successfully’ box on the proper form, the citizen should immediately have access to all rights and obligations of citizenship. It shouldn’t even be a legal question in my way of thiking. I suspect the Jim Crow and class aspect’s of incarceration come into play in this aspect of the justice system.

    Thanks for the reply, it was very interesting.

  61. If only “We the People” follow the rules, and the government doesn’t, they can put that on the tombstone of what used to be America. I agree that this probably isn’t going to end well, as the shades of Jefferson Davis and John C Calhoun can attest, but it’s good to see someone beyond a few scattered individuals standing up and saying “enough is enough.”

  62. the actions of sworn Federal law enforcement officers who are just doing their duty….
    That’s a good one.
    Gee, I wonder why all those states would try to send a message to the criminal Feds? It’s just terrible that they want freedom from voluminous, onerous federal laws.

  63. Bob Kauten wrote: “It’s unConstitutional for a state to decree that a federal law is unConstitutional. A state may contest any law in court.”

    It seems you do not understand the structure of our Constitution. It is the States that grant the federal government powers. The States are the ones who ratify the Constitution and who amend the Constitution as they deem appropriate. The federal government derives its powers from the States and only those powers specifically enumerated to it by the States. The States are sovereign entities.

    The Tenth Amendment makes it clear that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.

    The Ninth Amendment is very clear that if the Constitution does not specifically enumerate a right taken away from the people, then the people retain that right. In other words, if the federal government creates a law that attempts to take away a right I have, and that law is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution itself, then I have a legal right to disobey that law. I don’t have to wait for the SCOTUS to declare it unconstitutional. If I want to prevent tyranny in the federal government, then I not only have a right to disobey the federal government, but I have a duty to do so.

  64. David,
    If the states are “sovereign entities,” then surely you can show me where the word “sovereign” occurs in the Constitution of the U.S.A. I can’t seem to find it. A nation is sovereign within its borders. Individual states within the U.S.A. cannot be sovereign. They are not nations. Why do I need to explain something this obvious? This is the old slave-state argument. It’s been tested and settled. Think it’s about time to drop it?

    A state may declare a federal law unConstitutional, if it wants to waste its time, but it will have no legal bearing. It’s just blah-blah. If the state follows through and breaks the federal law, the state can be sanctioned by the Federal government.

    “…if the federal government creates a law that attempts to take away a right I have, and that law is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution itself, then I have a legal right to disobey that law.”

    You can disobey any law you choose, but it won’t be legal. That’s at your own risk.

    “I don’t have to wait for the SCOTUS to declare it unconstitutional. If I want to prevent tyranny in the federal government, then I not only have a right to disobey the federal government, but I have a duty to do so.”

    That’s fine. You can declare any law you want unConstitutional. You will be in violation of the law if you do not obey it. You may be subject to punishment.

    By a state “decree,” I mean a state court declaring, on its own, that a federal law is unConstitutional. It’s unConstitutional for a state to do that, on its own.
    So, to reiterate:
    It’s unConstitutional for a state to decree that a federal law is unConstitutional. A state may contest any law in court.

  65. Bob Kauten –

    When a person disobeys an invalid law, he expects that the SCOTUS would vindicate his actions should it require being heard by that court. For example, if I know the Constitution protects my right to speak in a public park, even though the city expects me to apply for a permit 10 days ahead of time to do it, I may violate that law and expect the legal system to protect me once it is appealed to the Supreme Court. Yes, I might be arrested and be harmed by the authorities, but this would all be done unjustly by the authorities.

    In the same way, States may exercise rights that are not specifically prohibited to it by the Constitution. They don’t have to go through some lengthy legal process of asking permission from the federal government to approve it first. What you advocate for leads to tyranny. This is exactly what tyrants want, for the people to ask permission to do what the law has already acknowledged is their right to do.

    Consider the following quotes about how unconstitutional laws are treated as void… as never having been made in the first place, when the high court has declared the law or regulation unconstitutional:

    “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it …. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
    — (American Jurisprudence, 2nd edition, Vol 16, Section 177)

    “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy; for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to, the former. To instance in the case of murder; this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and from these prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. Those human laws that annex a punishment to it, do not at all increase its moral guilt, or superadd any fresh obligation in foro conscientiae to abstain from it’s perpetration. Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine.” –(William Blackstone – Section 2 – Of the Nature of Laws In General)

  66. David,
    Once again you show you do not understand how laws work. A law is not “invalid” until it has been ruled so by a court of competent jurisdiction. That means if you don’t like a law, or think it is wrong, it is still a law. Disobeying or flaunting a law is, by definition, illegal. Illegal acts have consequences.

    The guy who shot Dr. Tiller took it upon himself to decide the law against murder did not apply to him and his belief system. Dr. George Tiller’s murderer has a RED date of 2060, when he will be 98 years old. Fifty years without the possibility of parole.

    It wasn’t that clown’s first self-proclaimed above the law behavior. He was caught with explosives and also did time for not paying taxes. See how this works? Make up which laws you will and will not obey and there are consequences.

    Notice how I did that? Mentioned Dr. George Tiller a couple of times, but the bottom feeder who shot him does not get a mention by name. As it should be. Let him die of old age in prison in anonymity.

  67. David,
    You may certainly choose to disobey any law that you wish, as I stated above. You may be disciplined for it.
    Authorities following the law, when they arrest you, may be behaving “unjustly” in your opinion, but they are not behaving illegally.

    Two of my friends knowingly disobeyed federal law, and served prison time for it. They were not foolish enough to argue that the federal law was unConstitutional. That’s a waste of time. They took their lumps.

    So, David, one lump, or two?

  68. Kearney, Missouri (CNN) — [Breaking news update at 9:44 p.m. Wednesday]

    A controversial gun measure won’t become law in Missouri after a push to override the governor’s veto fell one vote short of approval in the state’s Senate Wednesday. The measure, HB 436, would have essentially nullified federal gun laws in Missouri.

  69. I don’t know why I should need to explain to an adult how laws work. I’m no legal scholar, but I can read the Constitution. A high-school education provides some indication of what one can and cannot do, legally.
    Is this deliberate ignorance a neo-confederate lesion? Their lesions are legion.

    Thanks, Swarthmore mom. CNN is obviously incorrect. HB 436 would not have nullified anything.
    I’m sure this fantasy exercise served its purpose. The cretins in the MO legislature can strut about, saying, “Yep, we almost beat them Yankees, again!”
    This ain’t a game of horseshoes. “Almost” don’t cut it.

  70. OS wrote: ” A law is not “invalid” until it has been ruled so by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

    Not true. Higher laws always nullify lower laws that contradict them, even before the courts have ruled on the matter. Once the high court declares such laws as unconstitutional, the legal situation is as if that invalid law was never created to being with. The invalidness does not start at the point when the court has ruled it so, which is what you seem to assume.

    Before Lawrence v. Texas, there were 14 states with anti-sodomy laws. These laws were invalid even before the ruling by SCOTUS in 2003. People of the same gender always were free to engage in sexual relations even before the court ruling. The court ruling simply made clear that these were invalid laws. These laws were always invalidated by the Constitution which was written and in force prior to the creation of these illegal laws. Any arrests done under the authority of these laws were invalid and illegal.

    Our Constitution is somewhat unique in that it attempts to make the people sovereign. Tyranny is always about an hierarchical government where there is a chain of command that stops at the top in an ultimate sovereign whose personal will overrides all laws. Our Constitution tries to flip that somewhat, recognizing ultimate authority resides with the people, but establishes a federal government as a system of checks and balances. While there is that chain of command that makes common sense for the enforcement of law, it creates limited rights for that higher government. Ultimate legal authority is meant to be retained by the people, and this is what gives rise to the concept of fundamental rights that no government is allowed to violate. It is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. You either believe that concept or you don’t. If you believe this declaration, then legally the sovereign is the people, next the States, and last the federal government. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were designed to protect this concept.

    Men who get into power in the Judicial system usually want to behave as tyrants, so they deceive the people into thinking that the laws they create are valid until overruled by a higher court. This simply maintains their power over the people, contrary to the democratic principle that the people are the sovereigns and that government only functions with the consent of the governed. Educated people who understand the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the history and philosophy of our legal system know better. We are free to operate within the freedoms we recognize that we have. Yes, we may suffer for it. I have been arrested several times for exercising my rights, but the courts ultimately have justified me and have invalidated the law which pretended to make my arrest legal, or the actions of officers who arrested me illegally were invalidated.

    In some cases, you will get people who have legal arguments not recognized by the courts and who attempt to usurp the authority of the court system. It is one thing to exercise a right that you have, but it is quite another thing to usurp the authority granted to the court system. Shooting an abortionist is usurping authority granted to another. The authority for punishing crimes does not reside with any individual. It resides with our courts who operate based upon the laws created by a legislature. In contrast, speaking in a public park is exercising a legal right and is not the usurpation of authority, but the free exercise of authority that resides already with the individual.

    The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and if the federal government attempts to violate this right without a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment, they are violating the rights of the people. Those federal laws would be illegal. States that fail to violate such illegal federal laws are failing their duty to the people of their State. They should also file lawsuits on behalf of the people, but they should not allow tyrants of the federal government to usurp authority over the people in a way that has not been legally granted to them.

  71. David scrawls, “Higher laws always nullify lower laws that contradict them, even before the courts have ruled on the matter.”


    What a load of barnyard puckey. Higher laws than the ones on the books? Show me any statute, law textbook, or case law where there is such a creature. That is the kind of crap the sovereign citizen movement, neo-nazis and right wing fundaloons spew. Which one of those do you identify with the most?

    Even a bad law is still the law until it is repealed or overturned on appeal. As a law, bad or not, it is still the law and enforceable. Dred Scott is an example of that. Dr. King went to jail for violating the law. Bad law, yes. Enforceable anyway, yes–until it was eventually overturned. Miscegenation laws were on the books, and enforced, for the first two centuries of this country’s existence until they were overturned in Loving v Virgina.

    When individuals decide a law is bad and deliberately violate it in protest, they must be prepared to face the consequences as Dr. King did. If every person decided they would only obey those laws with which they agree, we would have anarchy. We do not want this country to become Somalia West.

    What a craptastic load of grandiosity.

  72. OS wrote: “When individuals decide a law is bad and deliberately violate it in protest, they must be prepared to face the consequences as Dr. King did.”

    Sounds like you agree with me then. As I said, we may suffer for doing it.

    OS wrote: “If every person decided they would only obey those laws with which they agree, we would have anarchy.”

    No, we would have freedom from tyranny. In any case, it is not about picking and choosing which laws we agree with. It is about recognizing when a lower law contradicts a higher law. If the Constitution gives you the right to bear arms, and a lower law, whether by the federal government, a State Statute, or a local ordinance, attempts to violate that higher law of the Constitution, he have not only the right, but the duty to violate that law in order to preserve freedom. It is amazing to me how some people support going to war with other countries to secure liberty and freedom, calling it the price of freedom, but then they deny the duty of citizens to disobey their own government when the government violates its own laws.

  73. **Is it a coincidence that the nullification “movement” has come to popularity since President Obama took office? **

    I’m disappoint in you Rafflaw, even when I presented you with evidence proving your assertion false, that you weren’t a big enough person to even muster an excuse that you’re insertion of inflammatory racism into your article might not/may not have been helpful & that it adds nothing to the story line.

    The reason I’m interested is that Oklahoma, like many other places, we have here every kind of Native American Tribal members there are & every race from around the world.

    Most of us are trying to get along with all these people & I resent people using that race crap, buzz words like neo confederate, etc.., as a political tool to spread hate & divide people rather then unite them.

    Below is a story on some of the people harmed by your type of slide of hand hate speech.

    ** “I Hate White People”: Media Downplays Brutal Racial Attack

    More black-on-white violence largely ignored by the mainstream media

    UPDATE: After being in a coma since the attack, Jeffrey Babbitt died tonight from his injuries.

    Kit Daniels
    Prison Planet
    September 9, 2013 **

  74. **When individuals decide a law is bad and deliberately violate it in protest, they must be prepared to face the consequences as Dr. King did. If every person decided they would only obey those laws with which they agree, we would have anarchy. We do not want this country to become Somalia West. **


    I agree with different pieces of your arguments but not all of them.

    I will take the time to point out to you that currently, right here in the USA, because govt political policies we already have anarchy & it’s growing everyday until we can get it stopped.

    So who are the leaders you support?

    All of us that are concerned have the common problem of how do we stop this growing tyranny & who are leaders we can have some trust in.

    In this clip of a Alex Jones rant, I didn’t care much for his throwing god/religion at the end, but in most of it he’s spot on.

  75. Oky1,
    If there is anarchy, it is illegal no matter who does it. Scofflaws risk running afoul of the law, and as we saw in cases such as John Mitchell, Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, the law can reach those in the highest positions if the will to prosecute is there. Nixon would most likely have been tried and convicted if Gerald Ford had not given him a blanket pardon within minutes of being sworn in.

  76. Oky1,

    You destroy any vestige of your credibility, when you source Alex Jones and Infowars.

    These sources “deliberately mislead,” to use a kind euphemism.

  77. OS,

    Nixon, that’s an excellent case to bring up on this topic of nullification.

    Our govt now public admits Gulf of Tonken was a false flag & the whole Veitnam war was a fraud against the USA citzens/world pop.

    Both Johnson & Nixon both should have been brought up on war crimes/crimes against humanity charges.

    But there was at least enough of a funtioning govt left at that time to basiclly work a plea deal with Nixon.

    I’m not sure today we even have that much of govt left to bring us back to some of the founding principles of rule of law, not rule of man, personal freedom & liberty.

    I feel many currently on the Supreme Court have lost all credibility.

    ie: John Roberts/Obamacare that’s current running the US economy off the cliff. ( My daughter actually believes it’s better/cheaper.) LOL :)

    And yes there are many laws/regs that I believe are unconstitutional.

    I peacefully battle against them as hard as I can & encourage others to do the same.

    Yet as an example I file IRS tax forms every years even though I know that agency is unconstitutional on many levels.

    I don’t know any of the principles involved in the Missouri nullification movement or their legal strategy to defend it.

    I’d like to know & I was hoping they’d pass it so we could all hear their arguments.

    For decades I’d hear everyone complain about govt policies & then they’d turn around & say: Oh well, there’s nothing we can do about it.

    I reject their reasoning.

    And even though the Missouri effort has failed for the moment there are other laws/regs the state can take like place restrictions on state/local govt employees ability to cooperate with govt agencies.

    I think for decades in Nevada it’s been illegal for state employees to cooperate with IRS dealing with individuals/corporations tax issues concerning the IRS.

    That’s what I’ve heard, but I haven’t read their laws.

    The faster us citizens can find common ground the less painful this current political transition will be for all concerned.

  78. Bob,

    Infowars has it’s flaws like we all do, but they are a good enough source for me.

    Now if they were to get to far off track & didn’t attempt to correct their errors I’d be reconsidering using their material/other sources.

    If you post sources I would attempt to view/consider them even if we didn’t agree on ever issue.

  79. I/they, those leaders, swear to protect & defend the constitution against Foreign & Domestic Enemies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What is it that they, those illegal criminals/economic victims/refugees of Wallst crooked banks/insur co’s should be demanding & defending for themselves & their families from?

    Some might feel their efforts at nullification are more justified then others:

    ** Legislature OK’s driver’s licenses for immigrants

    12 minutes ago

    Associated Press

    (AP:SACRAMENTO, Calif.) After years of setbacks, Democratic lawmakers and Latino activists are on the verge of seeing immigrants who are in the country illegally granted the right to a driver’s license in California.

    The state Assembly approved the bill on a 55-19 vote late Thursday, hours after the Senate passed it on a 28-8 vote. Gov. Jerry Brown issued a statement indicating he would sign it into law, which would make California the 10th state to allow immigrants to apply for licenses.

    “This bill will enable millions of people to get to work safely and legally,” the Democratic governor said in his statement, issued immediately after the Assembly vote. “Hopefully, it will send a message to Washington that immigration reform is long past due.”

    The approval on the final day of this year’s legislative session was a surprise.

    The author of AB60, Democratic Assemblyman Luis Alejo of Watsonville, was prepared to put his legislation on hold until next year because of opposition from immigrant-right groups. They had objected to a provision that calls for the licenses to be given a special designation, fearing the different look could lead to discrimination.

    The legislation was revived after lawmakers persuaded some of the activists to drop their objections.

    Alejo was elated as he presented the bill on the Assembly floor.

    “This is a very historic night for all immigrant communities,” he said, as a crowd of Latino senators and Assembly members gathered behind him. They hugged and cheered when the measure sailed through on the final vote.

    “We have had far too many families who have been divided, far too many workers who have been deported, for not having something so basic, so simple, as a driver’s license,” Alejo said.

    Several other attempts had passed the Legislature only to be vetoed by previous governors. Alejo said the author of most of those, former state lawmaker Gil Cedillo, had asked him to continue pushing the issue.

    The bill could allow some 2 million people in California to drive legally by allowing immigrants with proper identification to apply for a license.

    In the Assembly, Republican lawmakers who opposed the bill said granting a license with special markings to undocumented Californians would put employers and landlords in a conflict between complying with state and federal laws.

    Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, pointed to the card’s notice, which will state that it is only an ID for driving and that it does not establish eligibility for employment, voting or seeking public benefits.

    “In essence, it puts a big flag on the card that this is not for a person that is in this country legally,” Harkey said. “So I kind of question the purpose of the bill.”

    Supporters said California’s roads would be safer because immigrants would have to pass the written and driving tests, and would be eligible to buy insurance. The insurance industry and the California Police Chiefs Association supported the bill, Alejo said.

    Before 1993, citizenship was not a requirement for holding a license.

    Latino lawmakers in the Senate rallied on the Legislature’s final day to revive the bill, saying that legally licensing people to drive was more important than concerns over what the licenses would look like.

    “AB60 is not perfect, but it moves our state in the right direction,” said Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, who is chairman of the Latino Legislative Caucus. “The alternative is a status quo system that continues to penalize hardworking families with tickets, court fees and car impoundments. These families deserve better.”

  80. It seems to me that seen the Civil War, both States and Individual rights have suffered. Today, there are but a few rights left to protect. Right to travel – gone, Right to work – gone. Most property rights – gone. States Rights – pretty much gone.

  81. hskiprob wrote: “Today, there are but a few rights left to protect.”

    Skip, you might consider that the rights still exist, but the government is constantly trampling all over them. The government has become the criminal.

  82. David, you’re correct, that is the proper way to look at it. It’s just like gold and silver. It’ not the gold and silver that is going up and down in value, it the value of the US Dollar that is so volatile. A friend of mine constantly states that with fiat paper currencies, it like dropping them off the Empire State Building and seeing which one falls the fastest.

Comments are closed.