In the article, “Bills put focus on state’s rights“, Jonathan Shorman at the Springfield News Leader writes about several recent measures introduced in Jefferson City that seek to “invalidate” Federal Law within the borders of our State.
“Nullification is the idea that states can and should refuse to follow federal laws they see as unconstitutional,” Shorman writes. “A News-Leader analysis of proposed legislation shows that almost 20 bills introduced this year either seek to invalidate existing federal law or stop enforcement of possible future law.”
The article goes on to discuss lawmakers like Sen. Brian Nieves, who recently proposed three bills to stop federal law. One such bill is Senate Bill 325, which declares several existing federal gun laws invalid in Missouri. Also mentioned is Senate Bill 150, sponsored by Sen. Brian Munzlinger, which prohibits enforcement of any federal gun law passed after Dec. 31, 2012. Also included in the liberty-minded group is Rep. Doug Funderburk, who has introduced, House Bill 436, which could put local and state law enforcement in direct conflict with federal agents.
However, while the article is mostly positive towards the idea of Missouri lawmakers rightfully interposing on behalf of their Missouri Community – there are those who seem to not be overly receptive to the idea of God-given rights, or the need for our Missouri community to protect itself from Federal aggression. One such individual is George Connor, head of the political science department at Missouri State University, who believes the bills call into question the almost divine-like power of the Supreme Court in deciding what human rights are – or should be.
“The Supreme Court has ruled that there’s no such thing as nullification,” Connor said.
Unfortunately, Connor, who is seen as “extremely sarcastic, rude, and self-admittedly mean,” by his students as seen on the popular website Rate My Professor seems to forget the Supreme Court ruling of Norton v. Shelby County, 6 S.Ct. 1121, which states that citizens are not required to obey unconstitutional laws, as they aren’t really laws to begin with: “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.”