Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law

On Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter from Federal Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102 which Brownback signed into law last month.

The new law states, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

The bill also provides for criminal penalties against federal agents who attempt to enforce specific federal laws on guns manufactured in the state of Kansas and sold within the state – as the state takes the position under the new law that the federal government does not “interstate commerce” authority over such items.

In his letter, Holder didn’t take too kindly to such a proposition.  He wrote:

“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.”  

He continued, “Under the Supremacy Clause…Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities.  And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities.  Because SB102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supercedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.”

Let’s take Eric apart here.


A Libertarian Case for the Department of Education

Last week the Rooney-Blansten amendment requiring the federal Common Core curriculum to devote equal time to Republican presidents was narrowly defeated in the U.S. Senate, despite a RealClearPolitics poll showing 87.8921% of the public supported the idea.

I’m a libertarian who writes frequently for the Tenth Amendment Center, and years ago I donated to the Cato Institute. But despite these impeccable credentials, I support a yeasty view of the Constitution and believe it politically expedient to pass federal legislation that ensures Republican politicians receive the same favorable treatment as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in any national civics curriculum approved by the federal Department of Education.

Anti-federal supremacists need to refine their priorities, with an eye to keeping moderate Republicans in office. The focus on “federal involvement in education” is wrong-headed and counter-productive, and overlooks the legislatively-mandated benefit (explicitly affirmed in Rooney-Blansten) of having all public schools teach no fewer than 15 positive things each about Richard Nixon, the two Bushes, and even failed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.


South Carolina State House Votes to Nullify Obamacare, 65-39

A bill that would nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in South Carolina through noncompliance passed a 3rd and final reading in the state house today. The Republican controlled House approved H3101 by a 65-39 vote along partisan lines.  The bill reads, in part:

(3) It is the stated policy of the South Carolina general assembly that provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 grossly exceed the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.
(4) The provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 which exceed the limited powers granted to Congress pursuant to the Constitution, cannot and should not be considered the supreme law of the land.
(5,) The General Assembly of South Carolina has the absolute and sovereign authority to interpose and refuse to enforce the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 that exceed the authority of the Congress. (emphasis added)

The bill also prohibits state cooperation with implementation of the unconstitutional federal act within the state.

(A) No agency of the State, officer or employee of this State, acting on behalf of the state, may engage in an activity that aids any agency in the enforcement of those provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and any subsequent federal act that amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 that exceed the authority of the United States Constitution.
(B) The General Assembly…is empowered to take all necessary actions to ensure that the provisions of subsection (A) of this code section are adhered to by all agencies, departments and political subdivisions of the State.

Passage of H3101 into law would require the state to refuse the creation of an exchange, medicaid expansion, would empower them to strip licenses from insurance companies that accept monies from the Feds on Obamacare and much more.  This covers a big portion of the steps needed to fully nullify Obamacare.  No such bill – nothing even close – has been passed into law by any state in modern American history AFTER the Supreme Court gave their opinion on the constitutionality of a federal act.

In Federalist #46, James Madison himself endorsed this method as the blueprint for states resisting unconstitutional federal acts.


BREAKING: Docs Show Janet Napolitano Thanked Missouri Governor For Breaking State Law

By: Dana Loesch (Diary)  via (reprinted with permission)


Missouri Governor Jay Nixon repeatedly denied knowing anything about Missouri illegally sharing its citizens private CCW information with the federal government, even after his own head of Missouri Highway Patrol contradicted him in a public hearing. Now we’ve learned that Nixon not only knew about the violation of Missouri law, but he was thanked in a letter by Janet Napolitano:

DHS- Letter to Nixon- REAL ID Compliance — ongoing MO CCW Scandal

Missouri law — signed into effect by Gov. Nixon himself — prohibits full compliance with the Real ID Act. This includes sharing Missouri’s conceal carry list, which officials under Nixon did, with his full knowledge, according to this letter.


The Pentagon as a Jobs Program

One of the realizations that helped me to dispense of the neoconish foreign policy views of my youth is that for federal policymakers, the Pentagon is like a giant jobs program. Regardless of need, a military installation or armament factory can generally count on the unwavering support of the member of Congress who represents the district or state where the facility is located.

On Monday, the Associated Press’s Richard Lardner provided a textbook example: over the past two years Congress has spent almost a half billion taxpayer dollars—and wants to spend another $436 million—upgrading Abrams tanks that experts and the Army itself say aren’t needed.

Who are some of the biggest congressional backers of the tank upgrading? Why, Republican “deficit hawks”!

Keeping the Abrams production line rolling protects businesses and good paying jobs in congressional districts where the tank’s many suppliers are located.

If there’s a home of the Abrams, it’s politically important Ohio. The nation’s only tank plant is in Lima. So it’s no coincidence that the champions for more tanks are Rep. Jim Jordan and Sen. Rob Portman, two of Capitol’s Hill most prominent deficit hawks, as well as Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. They said their support is rooted in protecting national security, not in pork-barrel politics.

“The one area where we are supposed to spend taxpayer money is in defense of the country,” said Jordan, whose district in the northwest part of the state includes the tank plant.

Ah, yes, the “national security” excuse—probably the most cited justification by politicians to spend other people’s money since the ink dried on the Constitution.  


Health Care Nationalization Gamble Goes Bust?

The winning talking point of the Obamacare mandate was that people with pre-existing conditions could not be dropped from coverage or denied coverage for health care. describes each disease or condition a person diagnosed has resulted in an individual’s insurance was dropping their coverage or denial. As a result, the Government created the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Program (PCIP), a transition program, that people with pre-existing conditions shall be provided with health care insurance now and easily transfered over to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act when it becomes fully implemented in 2014. That way people have health care coverage instead of people being stranded in a no health care no man’s land until 2014.

PCIP is administered by either the federal or state government but isn’t necessarily apart of a federal or state exchange (There are only 17 states with a state run exchange). If run by the state, the “State will operate a new high-risk pool alongside an existing state high-risk pool, establish a new high-risk pool (if the state does not currently have one), build upon other existing coverage programs designed to cover high-risk individuals, or contract with current HIPAA insurance carriers or insurers of last resort to provide subsidized coverage.” Currently, 27 states provide PCIP coverage. State PCIP providers will suspend their program March 2nd.

If the PCIP is administered by the federal government, the Department on Health and Human Services runs the coverage program. This federal program started off with $5 billion dollars in 2010 and has officially closed in February! The current fund can only pay for those already enrolled, and the government can no longer accept anymore applicants. As the National Review Reports, “The average cost per enrollee in 2012 was $32,108 a year. But the costs varied widely by state, from a low of $4,276 per enrollee to a high of $171,909, and some patients have annual claims as high as $225,000 per person.” breaks down by state those people who are covered by PCIP. has estimated that 110,888 people have been enrolled in PCIP. Ten months from the full implementation of Obamacare, it is now estimated that at least 40,000 people with pre-existing conditions will be dumped off into the land of misfit toys….unless….


More Questions for Secretary Sebelius

by Michael Cannon, CATO Institute Given the growing concern even among Democrats that ObamaCare will result in a “huge train wreck” later this year, I have a few questions for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to add to my previous list: What happens if a federal court (say, the Eastern District of Oklahoma) issues an injunction barring HHS…