Just because a professor says it doesn’t make it so. In fact, many of them do not know anything about that which they claim to know. Such is the case with a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver, Sam Kamin who said laws to stop the firearms edicts of the nut job won’t be valid. He said, "The legislature can pass anything it wants. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes that clearly unconstitutional. Where there's a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme." It is suggested that the man either learn his subject or be quiet. Many in the legal profession say the same thing as Kamin, such as Dustin McDaniel, the Attorney General of Arkansas. He said similar things regarding supremacy of the Constitution: The Supremacy Clause invalidates all state laws that conflict or interfere with an act of Congress. It is suggested that they make those statements due to the liberal law schools whose members disdain the Constitution.

But notice the slight of hand or the changing of the words by the learned professor and Mr. McDaniel. The professor said the federal government is supreme and McDaniel said that Congress is supreme. They are both wrong because that is not what the supremacy clause says. Before explaining how they are wrong, if that was true, then federal law could make anything illegal on a whim of the members of Congress. But it is true that Congress does make things illegal. Where oh where are the incandescent light bulbs going? Harry Reid is the whimster that pushed that whim.

Now to discuss the slight of hand by changing words of the Supremacy Clause which will reveal the professor is full of hot air. Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution says 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. Note that both men substitute federal government and Congress for This Constitution to make either or both the supreme law of the land. Those who are not familiar with the Constitution will believe them. Neither the federal government nor Congress or the nut job is the Constitution; they are bound by the Constitution. It is not only the law professor and Mr. McDaniel who do not know the Constitution. Tim Kaine, newly elected Democrat Senator from Virginia, said that the Constitution and laws made by Congress give the nut job the power to make laws by executive order. Right. And Lucy let Charlie kick the football too.

As has been noted in http://www.bibleandconstitution.com/Liberal_Wrong_Again.htm, the professor, as did McDaniel, conveniently ignores in pursuance thereof. Pursuance means, Done in consequence or prosecution of any thing; hence, agreeable; conformable. (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary) Laws made by Congress must conform to the requirements of the Constitution.

Any law or treaty made must conform to the various Articles and Clauses of the Constitution, and when they don’t, they are not valid. Therefore, leaders of any state have not only the duty, but the obligation to the citizens of their state to disregard unconstitutional laws. The nut job’s executive orders fall into the same category since the Constitution does not grant to him legislative powers, much less dictatorial powers.

Professor Kamin claims that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme. (Note again the words he used in place of the Constitution being supreme.) Congress or the courts cannot legally change a state law that does not conflict with provisions of the U.S. Constitution and conversely, a state cannot change a law properly made in pursuance thereof, but if it isn’t so made, they can ignore it.

How is that true? The 9^th and 10^th Amendments are two of the keys to understanding the words in pursuance thereof. The 9^th Amendment says, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In other words, there are more rights enjoyed by the people than the Constitution lists. The 10^th Amendment says The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Simply, Article I, Section VIII, delegates certain limited powers to the United States Congress; and the Executive Branch is governed in Article II, Sections 1, 2, 3 applying to presidential powers; Section IV refers to removal from office; and the limits in both Articles prevent the United States from exercising power against the states and citizens it does not have by virtue of those limitations.

Since the citizens and states retain rights and privileges, any laws passed by Congress that are not in pursuance thereof are null and void. However, Article VI, Clause III must be considered 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. Those instructions are only valid when laws made by Congress are in pursuance thereof.  When they aren’t, they are not laws due to non-conformance to the Constitution and the 9^th and 10^th Amendments are the guide for the states. If and when a state or states follow unconstitutionally made laws, then those states are not supporting the Constitution.

In case there are those who do not believe what you just read, the following two quotes are proof in the form of a United States Supreme Court ruling and the Federalist papers: An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it
is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. --- U.S. Supreme Court, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1886)   There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. ---- The Federalist Papers- #78, by Alexander Hamilton.

For many years we have been subjected to every form of unconstitutional laws imaginable, which are nothing more that the babblings of a congress that does not respect the Constitution or our rights and the professor wants more of them.

  © 01-18-2013 DEC