Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – To read this letter here is just to read the most laughable interpretation of the federal constitution — I say laughable in 18th century terms. Of course today people think that what Eric Holder wrote, [mocking] “Yeah, he can do that.” You have guys like Bill O’Reilly running around who will cite the supremacy clause for the silliest things and not even question it. You should question it. The Feds are not supreme and you shouldn’t want them to be supreme. The whole concept of federalism, or as I call it republicanism, relies on the fact that they’re not supreme. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: Here is a headline that drew my attention last night “Eric Holder to Kansas governor: New state gun law unconstitutional.” I laughed out loud when I read this one. This is right out of the “you don’t know squat” — how many of you are old enough to remember the early computer game? That didn’t come out right. In the dawn of the personal computing era, there was a game you could buy for either the Mac or the PC. It was called “You don’t know Jack.” I’m trying to remember if I ever had it. You’d have to really be old like me to remember You Don’t Know Jack. Most people, especially those that are in elected or appointed office — it’s even worse if you’re in appointed office. Most in the elected offices, at least they’ve read the oath to the Constitution. Those that are in appointed offices don’t even know what an oath or a Constitution is usually. They will brandish one at you as if they’re Van Helsing brandishing a cross at Dracula. They’ll brandish one at you but that doesn’t mean they’ve actually read it, and it certainly doesn’t mean that they actually understand it, as ratified anyway.
When I read what Eric Holder had to say about the law that was passed in Kansas, I just had to laugh out loud and think: Attorney General Holder, you don’t know jack. He doesn’t know jack. Our pals over at the Tenth Amendment Center spared me from having to rewrite what ought to be common knowledge to all that take the oath of office to the Constitution. That is, if you read Eric Holder’s mighty protest against the Kansas law, it basically says: We’re nullifying your silly act, or whatever actions the president is going to take via executive order, or whatever silly actions the Congress is going to take. We’re basically saying that we’re ignoring you because you don’t have the authority to come in here and tell us what to do with our militias and the weapons that our militias — of course, there aren’t any militias anymore — would use. The Kansas legislature passes the bill and sends it to former GOP presidential candidate Sam Brownback. Governor Brownback signs it. Then comes the letter from Attorney General Eric Holder. Of course, he cites the farcical supremacy clause.
This usually comes up here on this show. It is a Free Phone Friday today. There’s hardly a free phone Friday that goes by that I do not field a question from either someone trying to get me in a gotcha moment or some curious soul who wants to know why the supremacy clause is not supreme in everything that happens under the sun, from here all the way to Romulus and then around the galaxy to the ice world of Hoth, then back on the other side of the universe to LV-426 where we find the aliens, then all the way back to princes and princesses of mars and then back to Earth. Why isn’t the supremacy clause supreme? If Congress says it or if the federal government says it, then it’s supreme. [mocking] “Citizen, obey your federal overlord, citizen.” As a matter of fact, that’s what the title of the story is in my Pile of Prep “Citizen, obey your federal overlord.” You’ve been ordered by Eric Holder to shut up and comply. Of course, the supremacy clause, as I say, I usually get this question on a Friday. I’ll just go ahead and ladle it out there like chum for the Jaws shark.
The supremacy clause is only supreme, you only do something that is supreme, if you’re a bureaucrat or the head of an agency or some mighty federal appointee in a department, or a member of Congress. You only do something that is supreme if you are carrying out an enumerated power. If you’re not carrying out an enumerated power of one of the powers that was delegated to the general government, then your action is not supreme because you were never delegated the authority. The states and the people of the states reserved the power to legislate in the absence of delegating the power to you; therefore, your act can’t possibly be supreme.
To read this letter here is just to read the most laughable interpretation of the federal constitution — I say laughable in 18th century terms. Of course today people think that what Eric Holder wrote, [mocking] “Yeah, he can do that.” You have guys like Bill O’Reilly running around who will cite the supremacy clause for the silliest things and not even question it. You should question it. The Feds are not supreme and you shouldn’t want them to be supreme. The whole concept of federalism, or as I call it republicanism, relies on the fact that they’re not supreme. The story goes:
A new law in Kansas that prevents government agents from enforcing federal gun laws in the state is unconstitutional, Attorney General Eric H. Holder said. [Mike: Oh, really? Please, do tell. I’m curious.]
“In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, [the law] directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional,” Mr. Holder wrote to Gov. Sam Brownback in a letter dated April 26. “Federal officers who are responsible for enforcing federal laws and regulations in order to maintain public safety cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution by a state and the continued performance of their federal duties.”
Mike: In other words, if a federal agency was appointed to pick up your garbage — [mocking] “We have appointed the Department of Homeland Trash Security as official federal agents of the garbage. They are going to go neighborhood to neighborhood, driveway to driveway and pick the garbage up. Anyone that tries to stand in their way, we don’t care what your silly state has legislated, we are supreme. Anyone that tries to get in our way and stop us from our daily run of picking the garbage up, they’d be in contravention of a federal law, and you will then put a federal garbage collector in the uncompromising or unnecessary position of having to choose between the laws of the almighty federal leviathan or the silly, stupid laws of some state, county or city. Guess what, Bucko? Since we’re the feds and we’re bigger than you and we have an army and you don’t, you lose.” That’s basically the interpretation here. It doesn’t matter what it is. It could be garbage collection, dog patrol, dog catcher, animal control. Down in Florida, you python chasers, if a federal python agency is consecrated and you’re told that you must stand down because federales are coming in to corral the pythons that have been let loose in the Florida Everglades that are now populating like bunny rabbits, if you’re told to stand down, you must stand down. Citizen python hunter, you must yield to federal python hunter.
In other words, there is then no limitation to the power of Congress. Holder doesn’t even quote the power of Congress. He doesn’t even cite it. He just says that if a federal agency is doing it, then you can’t do it. Am I being ridiculous? I know I’m going to get an email about this or I’m going to get tweeted, [mocking] “Come on, you’re not really serious about dogs and snakes and garbage collection.” Well, Attorney General Holder makes no distinction whatsoever. He doesn’t cite any clause in the Constitution other than supremacy clause, and then he only reads the first part of the sentence and doesn’t bother to read the clarifying clause, as the Tenth Amendment Center points out, “in pursuance thereof.” If I’m covering old material for you, pat yourself on the back. You’re a good student if you learned this well.
Mr. Holder wrote that federal authorities “will continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations. Moreover, the United States will take all appropriate action, including litigation if necessary, to prevent the State of Kansas from interfering with the activities of federal officials enforcing federal law.”
Mike: Ladies and gentlemen, if the men that ratified the Constitution in 1787 and 1788 would have known this, then we wouldn’t have a constitution today. If they would have known that an attorney general would basically declare himself, [mocking] “There’s a new sheriff in town. Let’s get something straight. I don’t like Kansas people” and could come in and ride roughshod over any acts of the several states, then we would not have the current federal monster that we have today, end of story. It would never have been ratified. I don’t believe it could have been ratified all the way up through the middle part or the ending part, the last quarter or so, of the 19th century. I don’t believe Americans would have accepted this. After Lincoln they would have accepted it. The Northern states would have said: That’s the way it ought to be. The Southern states said: No, that’s not the way it should be, that’s not the way it was, and you’re not going to make us do it.
Mr. Brownback replied to Mr. Holder on Thursday.
“The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear,” Mr. Brownback wrote in a letter dated May 2. “It is a right enshrined not only in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution… [Mike: Here’s where it gets interesting because Brownback then cites the Kansas Bill of Rights. This is the correct reading, the correct interpretation.]
“The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right. The people of Kansas are likewise committed to defending the sovereignty of the State of Kansas as guaranteed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,” he said. [Mike: Finally a governor that’s actually read the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Governor Brownback, you warm the cockles of my heart. Brownback sounds like he is a [r]epublican. I need to go check the logs and see if he is a member on the website at MikeChurch.com, see if he’s a Founders Pass member. He sounds like one.]
Mr. Brownback goes on to write that the legislation was passed on wide and bipartisan votes in the Kansas House of Representatives and the Kansas Senate, and that the Democratic minority leader in each chamber supported it.
“This is not a partisan issue in Kansas,” he wrote. “The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will. It is my hope that upon further review, you will see their right to do so.”
A handful of states proposed similar laws as Congress was weighing measures to ban semiautomatic, military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines…
Mike: So, citizen, is Kansas in the right? Is Governor Brownback correct? Of course, Kansans are correct and Brownback is right. The Second Amendment, when it was ratified, when it was drafted — see my brand-new docudrama Spirit of ’76 – The Story Continues on CD, which contains “Militias Are Good and They’re Good For You Parts I and II for an explanation. Let’s see how far the governor and the people of Kansas are willing to go. Are they willing to actually defy Holder when he tells Obama to withhold funds for highways? [mocking] “We’re not going to inspect your beef. We’re going to withhold agriculture funds.” Or is this just grandstanding and chest thumping?
End Mike Church Show Transcript