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)

The Journey for Justice March made its way through Rosebud, Missouri today on their way to Jefferson City.

Video posted on Youtube by Andrew McFadyen-Ketchum.

Welcome to Missouri and America in the 21st century.

It just goes to show you – right wingnut priorities remain right wingnut priorities.

A pre-filed bill in the Senate – by Ed Emery (r):

SB 98 Exempts capital gains on gold and silver from income tax and authorizes the storage of gold and silver in private repositories

Sponsor: Emery

LR Number: 0369S.01I Fiscal Note not available

Committee:

Last Action: 12/1/2014 – Prefiled

[….]

Current Bill Summary

SB 98 – This act creates an income tax deduction for the amount of capital gains income incurred by the resident from the exchange of gold or silver issued by the federal government. Such gold and silver held in an nonbank depository will not subject to disclosure except under warrant. The value of gold and silver held by a nonbank depository will be based on the London PM fix for that day. The act also repeals provisions making silver coins of the United States legal tender and limiting the amount that a payment may be made with silver coins.

[….]

It’s a good thing, because we were all so worried about this. Not.

Previously:

HB 421: channeling the Specie Circular (February 5, 2013)

HB 421: important things first (April 24, 2013)

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)

Early this morning, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler

The Capitol Christmas tree was lot last night. Beautiful. 3:30 AM – 3 Dec 2014

A tweet from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) – December 3, 2014.

Yeah, it was a typo. Sometimes we just can’t help ourselves…

The latest expression of white tribalism prompted by the protests in Ferguson is the disavowal of the St. Louis Rams football team by a local bar after some of the players signaled their support of the Ferguson activists by appearing on the field with their arms in the symbolic “hand up” position adopted by protestors. According to the report in the Huffington Post, the bar owners felt it incumbent upon themselves to signal their tribal allegiances by vowing on social media to switch their loyalties from the hometown team to the Kansas City Chiefs, while urging “customers to ‘stand up to thugs who destroy our community’.”  Yeah, they used the word “thugs”!  

When they experienced pushback for equating athletes exercise of free speech with thugery, the representatives of the bar suddenly decided that free speech was important after all – for themselves, at least, if not for the Rams players, responding with this opus:

Just to clarify our point of view at Time Out.

We SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH

We SUPPORT PEACEFULL DEMONSTRATION

We are NOT TAKING SIDES ON THE FERGUSON TRAGEDY

We DISAGREE WITH BRINGING THE PROTEST TO A NATIONWIDE PROFESSIONAL SPORTING EVENT.

We welcome all opinions because we believe in the first amendment, just PLEASE respect each other!

Just to clarify our point of view at Time Out. We SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH We SUPPORT PEACEFULL DEMONSTRATION We are NOT TAKING SIDES ON THE FERGUSON TRAGEDY We DISAGREE WITH BRINGING THE PROTEST TO A NATIONWIDE PROFESSIONAL SPORTING EVENT. We welcome all opinions because we believe in the first amendment, just PLEASE respect each other!

Yeah, sure. they’re not taking sides. And to make sure you know it, they used lots of capital letters.  And, of course, pigs fly. A commercial, publicly accessible bar can take a stand, but athletes can’t because more people see football games than patronize the Time Out. Have you ever noticed that folks in this particular tribe (the one that camps on the right side of the river), always seem to think that freedom of speech is sooooo important, except when it doesn’t support their point of view?

Nor is it just the athletic arena that is supposed to be free of real life. Remember when some St. Louis symphony goers got all huffy because they were subjected to a short, respectfully orchestrated protest at a performance that asked them to spare a few minutes from their comfortable and cultured complacency in order to witness a moving reminder that life isn’t nearly so nice for young men like Michael Brown?

This free speech for me, but not you attitude is not new; it’s status quo in conservative circles where every day Fox news clones are all atwitter over some liberal’s exercise of free speech that, in turn, causes logic-challenged wingers to go ballistic. In the political sphere, I think it was George W. Bush who made a habit of restricting “free speech” to reservations far away from media attention, effectively censoring the expression of opposition sentiment. Such “free speech zones” have since them become routine.

This carefully monitored, almost private exercise of free speech  is evidently what the folks at the Time Out Sports Bar & Grill expect to be the norm when it involves a point of view they don’t like. If a few individuals had stood up on national TV at the Rams game and made a show of their unconditional support for anyone who wears a police badge, I bet we wouldn’t have heard a peep from them.  Just like the folks who try to censor the opposition by segregating them in free speech zones also insist on extending freedom of speech to a rich man or corporations’ pocket-book. But hey, rich men are always right and corporations, unlike Rams’ players and other thugs, are people. We’ve all learned over the past few election cycles that dollar bills create their own free speech megaphone when they speak.

Like clockwork, at the Missouri Ethics Commission today:

C141055 12/02/2014 HANAWAY FOR GOVERNOR Rex Sinquefield 244 Bent Walbut Westphalia MO 65085 None Retired 12/2/2014 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Wouldn’t it be easier just to write one big check? Just asking. Unless, of course, you’ve already done that, too.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: through rain, through snow, through gloom of night… (November 25, 2014)

Campaign Finance: weekly retainer (November 18, 2014)

Campaign Finance: keeping up appearances (November 11, 2014)

Every time Rex Sinquefield signs a check a campaign consultant gets their wings… – part 2 (October 28, 2014)

Every time Rex Sinquefield signs a check a twenty-something campaign consultant gets their wings… (October 22, 2014)

Campaign Finance: making a choice (October 15, 2014)

Campaign Finance: a choice (October 1, 2014)

Campaign Finance: wachet auf (September 17, 2014)

Campaign Finance: Which side are you on? (June 30, 2014)

Campaign Finance: waking up at the end of the quarter (June 25, 2014)

Campaign Finance: different friends (June 14, 2014)

Campaign Finance: This probably qualifies as an oxymoron… (May 22, 2014)

So there. A bill, prefiled yesterday for the 2015 session in the Senate by newly elected right wingnut Bob Onder (r):

SB 51 Relating to prohibiting governments from compelling individuals to purchase health insurance and participate in health care systems

Sponsor: Onder

LR Number: 0574S.01I Fiscal Note not available

Committee:

Last Action: 12/1/2014 – Prefiled

[….]

Current Bill Summary

SB 51 – This act modifies what is commonly known as the Health Care Freedom Act which was approved by the Missouri voters in 2010. The act restates Missouri’s public policy of allowing its citizens the freedom to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without facing a penalty and provides that it is against Missouri public policy to implement or operate a health insurance exchange in Missouri. The act also posits several findings of fact of how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and implementing a state-based exchange would subject Missouri citizens and employers to penalties. The act further provides that if a health insurance issuer operating in Missouri accepts any remuneration that may result in the imposition of penalties contrary to Missouri’s public policy, then the Director of Insurance shall suspend the issuer’s license to transact business in Missouri. The suspension will stay in place until the issuer represents that it has returned the remuneration to its source and will decline any such future remuneration. The act further imposes a duty upon the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief and other appropriate remedies whenever the public policy set forth in the act is being violated.

This act is identical to SB 546 (2014) and SB 473 (2013).

[….]

You were expecting anything different?

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)

Today is the first day for prefiling bills for the 2015 session of the General Assembly. A bill on abortion from a republican:

HB 81 Changes the laws regarding consent for a minor to have an abortion

Sponsor: Anderson, Sonya (131)

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2015

LR Number: 0531H.01I

Last Action: 12/01/2014 – Prefiled (H)

Bill String: HB 81

[….]

Go figure.

Previously:

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

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

A press release from the office of Governor Jay Nixon:

Gov. Nixon agrees with alternative interpretation of appropriation authority offered by legislative leaders, making special session unnecessary

December 1, 2014

Jefferson City, MO

Gov. Jay Nixon today announced that a special session will not be necessary after agreeing with an alternative interpretation of current appropriation authority offered by legislative leadership.  Consistent with this reading of the law, the Governor will be using existing appropriations for the State Emergency Management Agency in HB 2008, Section 8.290 to fund the ongoing operations of the Missouri National Guard and the Missouri State Highway Patrol in Ferguson and the St. Louis region.

“We have an obligation to the people of Missouri and to the law enforcement officers and citizen-soldiers who are working tirelessly to protect them,” said Gov. Nixon.  “This interpretation of the law will allow these essential public safety operations to be funded without the need for a special session.”

The appropriation language in Section 8.290 has been traditionally interpreted as limited to the use of matching grants and exclusively for the expenses of the State Emergency Management Agency. Costs resulting from civil unrest are not eligible for federal reimbursement under a federal disaster declaration.  

However, in a letter to all senators, Senate Appropriations Chairman Sen. Kurt Schaefer wrote that the state could use the $12.5 million appropriation in Section 8.290 for costs incurred during an emergency.  “After researching this issue and discussing it with appropriations staff, I can find no apparent reason why the Governor cannot use this appropriation for either the Guard or Patrol given that he has declared a state of emergency in responding to Ferguson,” Schaefer wrote.

In a joint statement today, the House and Senate leadership have indicated they agree with this interpretation, saying “they believe the governor currently has the resources and authority to spend the necessary dollars to provide security to the communities of Ferguson and greater St. Louis.”

The Governor’s agreement with this interpretation negates the need for a special session for the expenses of the National Guard and the Highway Patrol in providing enhanced security in Ferguson and the St. Louis region.

If the republicans all agree they can’t complain later, right?

Previously: Gov. Jay Nixon: special legislative session – Ferguson (November 29, 2014)