ERIC HOLDER DECLARES WAR ON TENTH AMENDMENT?

ERIC HOLDER DECLARES WAR ON TENTH AMENDMENT?



Screen Shot 2013-05-06 at 12.12.54 PM

UPDATE: The Kansas Secretary of State has responded to Holder with a blistering rebuke. Read it here.


In a stunning and unprecedented letter to a sitting U.S. Governor, federal Attorney General appears to be in open violation to his oath to office.

I Eric Holder, do solemnly swear  that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

The letter comes in response to SB102, a Kansas bill that states the following.

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

Eric Holder, by oath, should have sent a letter of support to Sam Brownback and the state of Kansas. After all, if any federal agent or agency violates the second amendment, the states can indeed choose to ignore the enforcement of such a violation. Holder’s letter does the opposite. The letter presents a clear and present threat to the state should Kansas decide to abide by the tenth amendment. Here’s the letter in full.

The Tenth Amendment Center rips Holder apart with a response of their own. As they should. Holder’s letter appears to be a declaration of war on the tenth amendment and they know it.

1. Kansas is NOT purporting to criminalize the exercise of constitutional federal responsibilities.  On the contrary, the bill criminalizes what the state has determined is unconstitutional.   It is the position that such federal acts are indeed a violation of the Constitution.  No matter how much Eric might believe it to be otherwise, his view is obviously not universal – especially in Kansas.

2. The Supremacy Clause.  Holder takes the position that all tyrants do – that everything they do is authorized, anything to the contrary – worthless.  But Holder is wrong.  The Supremacy Clause doesn’t say that “any law in conflict with federal law” is void.  It says that only those laws “in pursuance” of the constitution are supreme.  The new Kansas legislation, again, takes the position that such federal acts are not constitutional, and therefore not supreme.

3. Historical Precedent.  The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was a federal law that basically required all states in the north to act as slave catchers for black people claimed as property in the South.  It’s one of the most disgusting acts in American history.  A number of northern states passed laws similar to the new Kansas law, criminalizing federal agents for attempting to kidnap people in their states.    Although the feds still claimed the same kind of authority that Eric Holder has claimed today, they didn’t have the manpower to enforce.  Read more about that here.    As an aside, if Holder would like to take the position that such resistance to federal slave laws was wrong, he’s welcome to publicly state that.

Eric capped off his letter by assuring the People of Kansas that the federal government will continue to enforce all federal gun laws.  He wrote:

“I am writing to inform you that federal law enforcement agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Attorney’s Office…will continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations.”

4.  Manpower.   That brings us to the most important fact, the federal government simply does not have the manpower to enforce all its laws already.  The new Kansas law doesn’t just deal with firearms made within the state.  It also bans all state and local agents from enforcing federal gun control measures.  (learn about the bill in detail here).  As Judge Andrew Napolitano has affirmed recently, such widespread noncompliance makes federal gun control laws “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here).  So Eric can promise to enforce these federal acts all he wants.  But if Kansas doesn’t help him, he might be able to get a 2% enforcement rate.  Or, he’ll have to pull resources from other states.

If the Attorney General’s office is unwilling to enforce the tenth amendment, and instead looks to force states to allow it to be violated, what’s the point of the AG office to begin with?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=516711224 Vic Bailey

    This BONEHEAD Socialist Regime has to go, the American people need to wake up before Bama and Holder start flying a new flag over OUR White House! Semper Fi.

  • unknown3rdparty

    And so the battle begins … Kansas has taken the role of leadership. It is blatantly obvious that the current administration is unwilling to defend the Constitution–not now and not even when they were elected and/or appointed.

    And so it falls to We the People and/or their respective states to do so, to defend her against her enemies. Nobody ever wants to believe that her enemies were the government itself …

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=118700104 James Layne

    I think the response to Holder is not very convincing.

    “Kansas is NOT purporting to criminalize the exercise of constitutional federal responsibilities. On the contrary, the bill criminalizes what the state has determined is unconstitutional.”

    That’s precisely the point. It’s not up to the state legislatures, or state governors, as it is also ultimately not up to the state courts, to have the final say over what is and isn’t constitutional. That simply can’t be right, or we’d have 50 versions of federal law, one for each state. What is at issue here is not so much what is and isn’t constitutional, but rather WHO decides what is constitutional.

    But this goes only to the mechanics of the constitution. We mustn’t forget that the states are the constituent bodies that make up the Union governed by the constituational compact. The state may have certain extraordinary remedies it can rely upon to defeat an unconstitutional act, but to do enact these remedies is to draw upon natural right, not the Constitution. The ordinary arbiter of constitutional law under the Constitution is the Supreme Court. A state going outside of this structure in an extreme circumstance is going outside the Constitution. So Holder can be correct and still not get the result he thinks follows from that.

    The people of any given state, as sovereign, have remedies against a violation of the Constitution that is clear. But the state legislature draws its authority from the people, the same as Congress. It has no right, except perhaps in the most extreme circumstances, to stand in between an act of Congress and the people.

    And yes, I know that only the federal law enacted according to the Constitution is law that is “Supreme law of the land” under the Supremacy Clause. But I find no indication in the founding period that a legislature is empowered to unilaterally decide what is and isn’t according to the Constitution. Instead, the people may do so through the political process, or, if the situation warrants and becomes bad enough, through revolution:

    “To these [the army of the Federal government] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among
    themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by [state] governments possessing their affections and confidence.” — Madison, Federalist 46 (No, I am not advocating that people take up arms against the federal government. What I’m pointing out is that the state governments can in extreme circumstances reach outside their constitutional limits in order to preserve the liberty of the people, and that such is consistent with the founding thought.)

    It is no answer to Holder bring up the fugitive slave act. That law could have been constitutional and still not valid law. The moral law required that such a law not be enforced, even if it corresponded with the mechanics and formal requirements and allowances of the constitutional text. Nobody should defend the Fugitive Slave Act as law, but one could potentially defend it as constitutional. There is a difference.

    My point: Holder, in saying that Kansas is violating the Constitution by trying to block federal officers from enforcing federal law, is probably technically correct. But the States as completely sovereign entities have powers that are over and above the Constitution, and which may with sufficient cause be used to prevent the deprivation of the liberties the preservation of which the Constitution serves as a means.

    • StuMarksez

      You are incorrect in assuming that the states do not have the final authority over what is and what isn’t Constitutional for their citizens. It is one of the reasons that we have separate states and state legislatures, and that the US Senate is made up of State representation. It is to underscore the control that citizens have over their own destiny. To have the feds be placed in final authority over us is called Statism. It might embattle you to think obverse to the mathematical hierarchy of top-down, but all the US Constitution does is to limit the federal government. This allows the states to govern with freedom from federal control in most areas; excepting interstate commerce and international border security; two areas that this federal administration has done their best to destroy.

      Furthermore, The 2nd Amendment was obviously designed to empower local communities to maintain local militias armed with locally owned firearms against which the federal government was not allowed to infringe. Therefore, laws created by the feds that infringe upon our 2nd Amendment right are truly un Constitutional, REQUIRING each state to properly deal with such laws, as NC has. Yes, REQUIRING… North Carolina and the other forty-nine states are required to protect the citizens against such over reaching and un Constitutional laws.

      Eric Holder is not even close to being any color or hue of “technically correct” as you put forth, James. Eric Holder is the opposite of correct. He has committed an actionable offense in writing and sending this letter. It can be construed as breaking his oath and beyond, into possible treason.

      To properly lay out the actual hierarchy of authority as our Republic was designed;
      From the top down;

      1) The Citizen
      2) The Elected State Legislature
      3) The Federal Government

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=118700104 James Layne

        I agree with almost 100% of what you say. I do disagree that states (in the sense of state legislatures, etc.) have final say over what is constitutional. I find that repudiated in the founding literature. My point was that even if the states are not the final interpreters of the Constitution (and they are not), the states still have power over and above the Constitution. The states made the Constitution. They are the parties to it. But this means “the people,” not the legislatures. This distinction is fundamental throughout the Federalist and the ratification controversy. I absolutely DO NOT believe in a top-down understanding of the Constitution. You’re 100% right that the Constitution limits the federal government, and not the states, except where the states agree to be limited. (a number of such instances are provided in the document itself, such as states not coining their own money or entering into foreign compacts). I think agreeing to the power of the federal courts to interpret the Constitution is one of those things the states agreed to in ratifying. How can the federal courts be given authority to interpret federal law, but not authority to give the meaning of the federal constitution, which is the highest law?

        How precisely could it be that the states are the final interpreters of the Constitution when the Constitution specifically says that laws in the states that are contrary to the Constitution are void? It doesn’t say they are void only if the state believes it is in violation of the Constitution. If each state could decide for itself, this phrase would be meaningless. A state could simply pass a law saying that it interpreted the federal constitution a certain way and that would completely undo the effect of the Supremacy Clause.

        • csh

          James, you are still missing the separation of powers…. The Supreme Court is still a federal court, and part of the whole federal package…. so to keep the balance of power, as James Madison so emphatically explained, was to make a distinct separation between the federal government, and the states and people. Each state designed with its own complete government deciding for itself what was good for its own state… EXCEPT for the very “limited” provisions they determined for the federal government. So, the people and state CAN determine for their state the laws of their state, but it isn’t called “federal” law… Federal law applies to federal jurisdiction, which is DC and its territories, or specific duties given to the federal government. If there wasn’t that separation, the federal government, with its branches conniving together, could vote and rule itself bigger and bigger until there was no other power of significance. That being of concern from the onset is why the rules were set to restrict the federal part of our government and allow each state to rule itself, with its own government.

          Have you ever heard of “The Act of 1871″? This was An Act To Provide A Government for the “District of Columbia”….. separate from the government “for the United States”.

          A corporation was formed and was deceptively called the “UNITED STATES” with its own government, and its own constitution, although looking very much like the existing one. “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES”, was still different than the “constitution for the united states of America”. Congress could make laws to rule its new corporate government for its district and jurisdiction…. that did not have to comply to our “constitution of the united states of America”…. we had a constitution for the states, and they had one for the district.

          Most people did not realize that though, and assumed that all the laws made for the corporate constitution applied to them, when they did not. Very deceptive. As long as we believed that, it worked to the benefit of the federal part of government because it made it more powerful and controlling.

          So when we see Congress making laws that are in opposition to the constitution for the united states, it is our duty to NOT automatically accept that they apply to the states and people.

          Nullifying unconstitutional laws that do not apply to the states is our duty as good Americans. If they want to disarm DC and its territories, that jurisdiction is theirs to do so, but not the states. If they create law that is not in agreement to our constitution for the united states of America, we have a right and duty to oppose those laws.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=118700104 James Layne

            CSH, if you read the Federalist, Madison and Hamilton make it a point to show that one of the main features of the U.S. Constitution would be the ability of the federal government to act directly upon the people, without the state legislatures being involved. I’m sorry, but what you’re saying may be nice in theory, but it is not what the states ratified. The closest thing you will get to what you’re saying in the founding generation is the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Alien and Seditiion Acts. However, Madison later stated explicitly that he had no intention to advocate for unilateral nullification, though Jefferson clearly did. I have studied this area of the law with some care. If I had time, I could bury you in a mountain of citations. But I don’t. The state legislatures simply have no authority to intervene in the implementation of a federal law. If you have specific evidence that the founding generation understood this differently (and I take that to be dispositive), then I’d be happy to see it.

        • StuMarksez

          James, I think we’re on the same page and in agreement. We certainly are on Holder’s treatment of States’ rights and the citizens therein.

          I know that there are many differences between Reaganesque statesmen and today’s politicians. To me, the largest contrast is how today’s elected officials on the Left seem to not only hate The Rule of Law as it is represented by our founding documents, but their misunderstanding of the intent of said documents as well as the actual content therein. Little Barry himself was a Constitutional professor for goodness sake. I just can’t imagine Ronaldos Magnus teaching Kremlin etiquette in Russia.

          • Philnumber3

            0dumbo was a “professor” in name only. He lacked the qualification and experience. He was hired by politics, not his education or ability.

          • rumennek

            He is a community leader ,in other words an activist. Going to Harvard doesn’t make one smart.

      • csh

        And if his letter isn’t treasonous enough, his aiding and giving comfort to the enemy is… byway of supplying Mexican Drug lords and terrorists with weapons/ firearms, resulting in the murder of many innocent lives.

    • http://www.facebook.com/DvlDawg Glen Saunders

      You are 100% WRONG. Nice try though. I would suggest you go back and reread the US Constitution paying particular attention to the 10th Amendment. You also may want to investigate what interstate commerce is versus intrastate commerce.

      • Philnumber3

        Exactly! The federal government has absolutely no business involving itself in any state’s intrastate dealings but only interstate issues. Holder is a product of liberal education and thinking, which is that the federal government is infallible and omnipotent. It is neither.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=118700104 James Layne

          This is not entirely true. The 14th Amendment gives the federal government power to intervene in purely intrastate matters, as does the 13th and 15th amendments. But the scope of this power is limited. I think it’s pretty clear, though, that the founders intended no such federal power under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

          • Philnumber3

            I fail to see how the 14th amendment gives the federal government power to involve itself in state matters that has nothing to do with interstate or federal matters. At most, the 14th mandates that states recognize the Bill of Rights.

            The 13th abolishes slavery, which has nothing to do with firearms or intrastate matters other than slavery which was outlawed by this amendment.

            The 15th deals with suffrage.

            The 10th amendment is where you need to focus. Realize also that Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, commonly called the “Supremacy Clause” is the supreme Law of the Land. It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power. Since Kansas is reinforcing the second amendment, any infringement on that by Holder and his gestapo troops is in violation of not only the second amendment but the 10th as well.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=118700104 James Layne

        Glen, I’m well aware of the difference between intrastate and interstate commerce. I’m well aware of the “substantial effects” test that defines interstate commerce as that which has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. That’s a substantive question, though. It misses the entire point of what I said. My point had nothing to do with substance. It had to do with process. The question is WHO decides, not WHAT they decide. Under our Constitution, it is clearly not the individual state legislatures that decide authoritatively the meaning of the text of the United States Constitution. As I noted above, a careful reading of the federalist will, I believe, show two principal changes between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution: the first is that the new Constitution would be founded on the authority of the people directly, not the state legislatures as under the Articles. Second, that the federal government would have authority to act directly upon citizens, without any power of intervention by the state legislatures. This is an absolutely clear point that the founding fathers left no doubt upon. And the states agreed to this clearly known point.

        This is why, when the South issued articles of secession, they did so through the people, not the state legislatures, because the power that delegates is the power that must undelegate if the time ever came to do so.

        So far as I can tell, and I have studied this area of founding thought with some care (more on the side of whether secession was legal at the time of the founding), Jefferson was the main proponent of the idea that nullifcation could be performed by an individual state. Madison and the other principle founders, who were actually involved in writing the Constitution (unlike Jefferson), disagreed.

        The 10th amendment reserves to the states all powers that are inherent in sovereignty not delegated to the federal government. This begs the question, my friend. The very question is whether the state has delegated to the federal government the authority to interpret the Constitution authoritatively.

        As Hamilton said clearly in Federalist 38, and Madison expressed elsewhere (as well as others):

        “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of
        the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the
        judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain
        its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding
        from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an
        irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior
        obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other
        words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the
        intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”

        If then it is a mistake to allow the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, it’s a mistake made by the founders. As much as we may wish it weren’t so, wishing cannot change history.

        I will be happy to write more on this subject when I have time. Thanks for the lively discussion.

        • Philnumber3

          The main problem with the SCOTUS is that it has reversed previous SCOTUS decisions using the very same constitution. Look at Plessy v Ferguson and compare it to Brown v Board of Education. Same problem, same constitution, same constitutional body but opposite results. Since the SCOTUS is obviously just another political entity, their decision is only as good as any other politicians.
          So the question is, when the SCOTUS errs, how is it corrected?

  • jmlsmb

    I have never heard of an AG bullying and suing States as this evil idiot has done. Arizona, South Carolina, Florida, the list goes on. He is an embarrassment and should be in jail.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=797994811 Michael Kimsey

    Holder needs to be in prison for his part in fast and furious along with his cronies.. He has no place in politics.

  • http://www.facebook.com/roger.moses.58 Roger Moses

    I am and always have been proud to call KANSAS home. I knew when our governor did this thug holder would get P O’d because someone was not bowing and scraping to his highness. I hope he gets whats coming to him for Fast n Furious along with O-Hole and hillary the HAG for allowing the murders of our brothers in Benghazi.

  • CraigB

    Go Kansas!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1129372599 Bob Lee

    The Nazi regime of the Obama administration.

  • StuMarksez

    Thank you Eric Odom for this well put together article. This single article takes the place of an entire armada of poor and weak writing of The AP style.

    Articles like this do a great job when they announce the topic, point out the obvious leading element of the story that is highly relevant to the reader, support their findings with inarguable facts based on reliable and easily corroborated sources, and then even put forth relevant circumstances of ultimate conclusions.

    Writers like this are rare in The AP universe and are becoming the sole residents in anything but the main stream media.

    Writers like Eric Odom are the reason that I exclusively get my daily news from anything but TV and the MSM magazines and news papers. Some day, we will all realize that Liberty News and even Fox News and their like, are actually THE NEW MAIN STREAM JOURNALISTS from where every one gets reliable news, leaving ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN in the irrelevant dustbin of partisan hacks; where they’ve been for decades anyway.

    Stu Marks
    Editor for RightPaparazzi
    http://rightpaparazzi.blogspot.com/

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ruth-Nelson/1453170470 Ruth Nelson

    I am so sick and tired of this “administration” and their behavior. The Constitution is for We the People, so that we may have protection from aggressive and tyrannical governments. It’s high time POTUS, FLOTUS and the entire staff, cabinets members, all of them went away. God help us!

  • http://www.facebook.com/vonda.rochelle Vonda Rochelle

    I am so sick of these people who are hell bent on destroying our country. Every single one needs to be held accountable for every word spoken that does not support the constitution.

    • NC_lady

      Please explain to me how this is destroying our country. It appears to me that Kansas, thumbing it’s nose at the federal government is the problem.

      • sartras

        I’ll answer that if you answer why Holder is singling out Kansas? Colorado and Washington passed laws legalizing Marijuana, in violation of federal law. Yet there is no constitutional right to smoke pot. As a clue to my response if you can find justification, my first instruction would be to actually read the article which spells out how many constitutional amendments the federal government has chosen to ignore.

      • rumennek

        No uninformed dummies like you are the problem

      • Philnumber3

        How is Kansas “thumbing it’s nose at the federal government”? Kansas is following the constitution. If that’s wrong, color me wrong as well because I support the limitations placed on the feds by the constitution. When the feds overstep their boundaries, the least that should be done is to ignore them.

      • http://www.facebook.com/casey.bliss.39 Casey Bliss

        Thumbing their nose at illegal federal laws is very much what the constitution says any state or citizen not only has the right to do, but the RESPONSIBILITY to do. Our Forefathers set up the constitution and our bill of rights to be birth RIGHTS, not privileges, that can never be revoked or denied, with the sole purpose of giving the people the ability to stand up to tyrants when those rights are in jeopardy.

      • Flipperj

        No the problem is idiots like you allowed to breath

  • http://twitter.com/ThePOLORCrew Paul Rarey

    It’s this simple – Eric Holder is a criminal. Any state that has passed the Constitutional Carry acts, that Holder steps into – has the right and duty to arrest him. Then try him for criminal acts in their state (or threats of such).

    Time to stand people. Holder crossed the line – again.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000259671914 Robert Chambers

    I don’t think Holder realizes that the states give the federal government their authority and the federal government does not give the states their authority. After Obama saved his ass on fast and furious I think he thinks he can do what ever he wants. I think we need to ship him over the border to the relatives of the people that died because of him shipping guns to Mexico. This man is a fool and so is his boss

    • rumennek

      Yes just dump him in the street and yell his name.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.smejkal2 David Smejkal

    why don’t newspapers shout this? Why not on radio ,TV I make comments on yahoo this should have gone viral the sheeple need to hear the truth. TELL THEM

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505700018 Traci Lee Sommerville

    Jesus Christ Holder, who the hell do you think you are? You’d best be backing off and learning your constitution pronto!

    • NC_lady

      Spoken like a fine upstanding Christian.

  • jjjddd

    An enemy of the State!
    Drone him Bro.!

  • http://www.facebook.com/robert.bergl Robert C Bergl

    Fire this piece of crap.

  • disqus_XeFVQf2YXo

    We heard all this Administration garbage over immigration in AZ and , previously, about gambling and prostitution in NV… Just a bunch of useless rhetoric from the number 3 liar in the administration, maybe number 4..

  • http://www.facebook.com/denis.gormley.7 Denis Gormley

    Been wondering about that for quite a while myself. (Just what IS the point of the, (and especially THIS), AG office?

  • csh

    Everyone should call Eric Holder and tell him that he is WRONG in regards to the Supremacy clause… The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, not federal dictates. Federal law must be in compliance with CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. They can make any law they want to in their own federal jurisdiction of DC and some of its territories, but those laws don’t automatically apply to the states. It’s up to the states and people to decide.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mfondren3 Michael Fondren

    Eric Holder is the most dangerous Attorney General ever to hold the office. From his intentional bungling of the voter intimidation case of Philadelphia, to the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans with Fast & Furious, to the Mirandizing the Boston Terrorist and now this pushing to destroy the 2nd Amendment, this Eric Holder needs to be jailed. He is pure evil and a real threat to freedom and justice.

  • http://www.facebook.com/DvlDawg Glen Saunders

    I would take an educated guess that Eric Holder isn’t welcome in Kansas. I’m hoping the rest of the States pull their heads out and enact the same legislation……Semper Fi

    • Philnumber3

      At my last count, 30 states had bills similar to this on their legislative dockets. Kansas is the only one to forge ahead of the others and enact it into law.

  • http://www.facebook.com/darrell.a.tansy Darrell Allen Tansy

    HA HA HA HA HA YOU GO KANSAS WE THE PEOPLE HAVE YOUR BACK .
    And if you need any help just call I know a lot of people that will come,,,MOLON LABE SEMPER FI.

  • http://www.facebook.com/fgiovanelli Frank Giovanelli

    Hey what if the 2nd amendment turns on them first?

  • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.albert.1029 Thomas Albert

    Eric Holder is a criminal and needs to be put against the wall with the entire executive branch, their staff, the entire Congress and their staff, plus the Supreme Court and its staff and SHOT for TREASON! Then we go after the lobbyists and utterly destroy therm, so in the future anyone looking at the position would think twice about undermining the nation for personal profit.

  • jerry sailor

    Who are you and what exactly are your credentials? This doesn’t seem like a real news site to me. It’s more like a “your point of view site”. You seem to disregard a true anaylitical approach. And do not send me any emails.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.ferric.3 John Ferric

    Fuck all you racist haters. Eric holder is doing a great job, and all you fucking racist want to lynch him.

    • http://www.facebook.com/sam.mcdonald.58367 Sam McDonald

      Looking at your Icon gives all the validity to your statement it deserves…

    • StuMarksez

      John, why would you change the subject and bring race into the discussion? Who was talking about race? People who see issues of color, where none exist are — well — racists.

      • Philnumber3

        Look at the history of John Ferric. Eight posts, each involving race. Apparently to him, everything it racist so I believe it can be safely assumed John is a pro-black, anti-white communist.

      • http://www.facebook.com/john.ferric.3 John Ferric

        You’re such a closeminded bigot. Why don’t you fucking die fucking racist? He’s a black man, that’s why.

        • Flipperj

          S few you mulyan

    • Flipperj

      Not as bad as lynching you

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1514231924 Joyce Baugh

    good for Kansas, any flag this body uses will have obama’s face on it

  • Dmikem

    Only from my cold dead fingers.

  • http://twitter.com/WilandKate kgb

    Our attorney genereal is also a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ATTORNEY AS IS TED CRUZ AND HE HELPED TO WRITE OUR LAWS IN KANSAS. TRY AGAIN HOLDER. WE STAND SHOULDER TO SHOULDER IN KANSAS. BRING IT ON.

  • InfidelNumberOne

    So Kansas should just revoke all CCW’s possessed by the feds in KS. and demand they immediately surrender their weapons to the nearest sheriffs office.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Braun/1662038676 Chris Braun

    How come Holder expects Kansas to help him with gun laws, while prosecuting states for helping with immigration laws?

  • http://www.facebook.com/DarthWhitey Paul Alan Whitehouse

    This is quite possibly the stupidest thing i have seen all week so far. Hello! Ever actually READ the Constitution? A little something called the Supremacy Clause? States do NOT get to decide which federal laws they will or will not obey. ANY state which has decided to make it a STATE crime to enforce FEDERAL law IS committing TREASON. Kansas should count itself lucky that Holder hasnt already filed the charges.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Laura-Key/1509172252 Laura Key

    In a letter BACK to Eric Holder from Kansas.. it should read the following:
    “Mr. Moron Eric Holder. You are wrong. Eat shit and die.
    Strong letter to follow.
    Regards,
    Kansas”

  • http://www.facebook.com/james.olechovski.7 James Olechovski

    Almost sounds like a threat of war on kansas

  • http://www.facebook.com/james.olechovski.7 James Olechovski

    And sounds like kansas is defending the constitution no breaking it the federal government is the one breaking it. I fear a civil war in my life time and not the north against the south but the state against the fed.

  • hooplajuker

    Go to hell Eric Holder, may the Lord and the people of this great nation, curse you until you repent. And I am not joking.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kacy.sherwood Kacy Sherwood

    We’re with you Kansas…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1550086599 Ian Mackenzie

    the gun runner Holder should be sitting in a federal prison