Tags

, , , ,

In the United States Constitution:

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[emphasis added]

It’s also called “the supremacy clause”.

Another pre-filed right wingnut futile exercise in nullification from the republican majority in the Missouri General Assembly:

HJR 12 Proposes a constitutional amendment that prohibits the state from devoting any resources toward enforcing any federal law deemed unconstitutional by the voters or the general assembly

Sponsor: Brattin, Rick (055)

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2015

LR Number: 0541H.01I

Last Action: 12/03/2014 – Prefiled (H)

[….]

The text:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE BRATTIN.

0541H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article I of the Constitution of Missouri, by adopting one new section relating to state sovereignty.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:

That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2016, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding one new section, to be known as section 36, to read as follows:

Section 36. 1. To protect the people’s freedom and to preserve the checks and balances of the Constitution of the United States, this state may exercise its sovereign authority to restrict the actions of its personnel and the use of its financial resources to purposes that are consistent with passing a constitutional amendment under article XII, sections 2(a) and 2(b), of the constitution of Missouri; passing a bill under article III, of the constitution of Missouri; or pursuing any other available legal remedy.

2. If the people or their representatives exercise their authority pursuant to this section, this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with the designated federal action or program.

Uh…

“…Proposes a constitutional amendment that prohibits the state from devoting any resources toward enforcing any federal law deemed unconstitutional by the voters or the general assembly…”

Seriously? Missouri voters and the Missouri General Assembly aren’t the final arbiters on the question of what’s constitutional or not. Over two hundred years ago:

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

[….]

….It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178]   So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty….

[….]

Read the entire decision. It’s obvious Representative Brattin (r) needs a refresher.

Previously:

You were expecting anything different? (December 1, 2014)

It’ll be a cold day in the General Assembly… (December 1, 2014)

Now we’re just waiting on the Agenda 21, Sharia law and nullification bills (December 1, 2014)

Oh, and Obamacare is evil, too (December 2, 2014)

Going for the gold and silver (market) (December 3, 2014)