Kansas tells Washington to suck it

[linebckr83 3]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/kansas-secretary-of-state-to-eric-holder-you-dont-understand-the-constitution-stay-out-of-kansas/

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[Andy9o8 0]

There have already been 1 or 2 other threads about this, i.e., conservative states that have passed this type of legislation. Long story short, the statutes either have no practical effect, or to the extent they conceivably might, they're already effectively null and void, due to the principle of federal preemption*. (* Federal laws covering a specific subject trump any state's laws that cover the same subject.)

Short version: dog & pony show; legally meaningless.

[BillyVance 34]

In short, the feds have a bigger dick, and aren't afraid to swing it.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[rehmwa 2]

BillyVance

In short, the feds have a bigger dick, and aren't afraid to swing it.

so we're saying Kansas is kinda like the U.N.?


well, they are making their opinion known anyway...

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

rehmwa

***In short, the feds have a bigger dick, and aren't afraid to swing it.

so we're saying Kansas is kinda like the U.N.?

well, they are making their opinion known anyway...

And if the Kansans are happy with their state taxes being spent that way, that's their choice. They certainly not going to spend the money on science textbooks.

[linebckr83 3]

So you're saying the state is wrong and the federal government can in fact do whatever the hell it pleases regardless of what a state says?

The rebuttal letter from the state says that the constitution is not written that way. So, what/who stops the federal government from doing whatever the hell it wants? Sounds like unlimited power to me...

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

So you're saying...

Please - bush league.

[linebckr83 3]

Andy9o8

Quote

So you're saying...

Please - bush league.

You sure are a sensitive guy. Next time, before you assume someone is trying to pull a fast one on you, try to understand that maybe it's a real valid question and not a personal attack aimed at you.

You said: "Long story short, the statutes either have no practical effect, or to the extent they conceivably might, they're already effectively null and void, due to the principle of federal preemption."

So I'll ask again, does this mean that the state of Kansas is wrong and the federal government can in fact do whatever it wants regardless of state law?

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[Andy9o8 0]

linebckr83

***

Quote

So you're saying...

Please - bush league.

You sure are a sensitive guy. Next time, before you assume someone is trying to pull a fast one on you, try to understand that maybe it's a real valid question and not a personal attack aimed at you.

You said: "Long story short, the statutes either have no practical effect, or to the extent they conceivably might, they're already effectively null and void, due to the principle of federal preemption."

So I'll ask again, does this mean that the state of Kansas is wrong and the federal government can in fact do whatever it wants regardless of state law?

No. Per the US Constitution, whatever powers the federal government does not reserve to itself are presumed accorded to the states. But federal preemption means that if the federal government decides it will legislate on and/or regulate a particular subject, then federal constitution and laws trump state laws. That's also per the US Constitutions, which says, at Article VI, clause 2 (a/k/a the Supremacy Clause):

Quote

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.

[winsor 186]

linebckr83

***

Quote

So you're saying...

Please - bush league.

You sure are a sensitive guy. Next time, before you assume someone is trying to pull a fast one on you, try to understand that maybe it's a real valid question and not a personal attack aimed at you.

You said: "Long story short, the statutes either have no practical effect, or to the extent they conceivably might, they're already effectively null and void, due to the principle of federal preemption."

So I'll ask again, does this mean that the state of Kansas is wrong and the federal government can in fact do whatever it wants regardless of state law?

Per the case of U.S.A. vs. C.S.A., it sure would seem that way.

[Southern_Man 0]

linebckr83

So you're saying the state is wrong and the federal government can in fact do whatever the hell it pleases regardless of what a state says?

The rebuttal letter from the state says that the constitution is not written that way. So, what/who stops the federal government from doing whatever the hell it wants? Sounds like unlimited power to me...

Interposition has a long and not so glorious history.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[skinnay 0]

linebckr83

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/kansas-secretary-of-state-to-eric-holder-you-dont-understand-the-constitution-stay-out-of-kansas/

Ah yes, let's use Kansas as a role model for advanced civilization

[linebckr83 3]

Eh, I have been to a lot of places and still enjoy being born and raised in Kansas. I wonder if there's something wrong with this state besides that it is a "red state." And very flat.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[Stumpy 256]

linebckr83

Eh, I have been to a lot of places and still enjoy being born and raised in Kansas. I wonder if there's something wrong with this state besides that it is a "red state." And very flat.

What you mean apart from the fact those who control education in the state are putting their own religious dogma ahead of science?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[linebckr83 3]

Please clarify. It sounds as if you have scientific evidence that proves religious dogma to be incorrect.

I know of no school forcing religion on anyone. Maybe you know better than I do since you live here too?

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[skinnay 0]

linebckr83

Please clarify. It sounds as if you have scientific evidence that proves religious dogma to be incorrect.

I know of no school forcing religion on anyone. Maybe you know better than I do since you live here too?

Well I'll throw one out there... ever hear of the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act?

[Andy9o8 0]

linebckr83

Please clarify. It sounds as if you have scientific evidence that proves religious dogma to be incorrect.

I know of no school forcing religion on anyone. Maybe you know better than I do since you live here too?

Well, it does have A bit of a history.

[linebckr83 3]

skinnay

***Please clarify. It sounds as if you have scientific evidence that proves religious dogma to be incorrect.

I know of no school forcing religion on anyone. Maybe you know better than I do since you live here too?

Well I'll throw one out there... ever hear of the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act?

What does preserving religious freedom have to do with forcing religious beliefs in school? The same level of protection has been in place at the federal level for 20 years now, and 20 states have passed similar bills.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[linebckr83 3]

When I learned about that, I was taught that it wasn't forcing any particular set of ideas, and that the main focus was to encourage young adults to make their own decisions. I never got the impression that anything was being forced.

Just like some people think it is crazy to believe in a god, many of these people think it is equally crazy to not believe in one. Until the day that science can undoubtably prove there is no existence, there will be religious people who want kids to learn what they believe to be the truth.

I spent all my time in private schools. I was taught a great deal about evolution.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

Just like some people think it is crazy to believe in a god, many of these people think it is equally crazy to not believe in one. Until the day that science can undoubtably prove there is no existence, there will be religious people who want kids to learn what they believe to be the truth.

And which God should their children learn about, and where? And what if other parents disagree with how God is described -- should they get to, too?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[skinnay 0]

linebckr83

******Please clarify. It sounds as if you have scientific evidence that proves religious dogma to be incorrect.

I know of no school forcing religion on anyone. Maybe you know better than I do since you live here too?

Well I'll throw one out there... ever hear of the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act?

What does preserving religious freedom have to do with forcing religious beliefs in school? The same level of protection has been in place at the federal level for 20 years now, and 20 states have passed similar bills.

You should probably read into more than just the title of the Act

[linebckr83 3]

So what's the ultimate decision then? Teach kids that no God exists at all? That's the default nowadays. Maybe schools should offer different classes for this subject, and the parents/kids can choose which one they prefer to learn about? My point is, telling kids they cannot learn about intelligent creation is just as wrong as telling them they cannot learn about evolution.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[linebckr83 3]

You'll have to point me somewhere because the articles I read were pretty vague and didn't go into detail. Having said that, if the federal government and nearly half the state governments choose to enforce the same idea, I doubt it's as evil as you make it out to be.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[rhaig 0]

Andy9o8

Quote

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.

so when a state legislature believes that those laws may not be constitutional, they legislate to nullify and it plays out in court. That's what I'm waiting to see.

--
Rob

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

Teach kids that no God exists at all?

Don't address the issue of God. God is a faith matter, and faith is not for schools. Schools are for facts, math, science, etc. It's entirely correct to teach that evolution is a theory, but once you go into specific alternative theories (like intelligent design), then you have to decide if you want the "7 days" version, the "world on an elephant" version, etc.

There's a world of difference between not teaching that God exists, and teaching that there is no God.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)