Texas is not the only state trying to rewrite the US Constitution ~ but this seems extreme ... even for Texas ~ ~ Sooz

Unconstitutional Texas Bill Would Make Enforcing Federal Gun Laws A Felony
By Ian Millhiser on Jan 15, 2013 at 5:32 pm

Texas State Rep. Steve Toth (R-TX), with the apparent support of at least one of Texas’ most powerful politicians, will introduce unconstitutional legislation subjecting federal law enforcement officers to arrest and prosecution if they enforce new gun safety laws in the Lone Star State:


Toth’s bill is wildly unconstitutional. The Constitution provides that duly enacted federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land” — a provision known as the “Supremacy Clause” — and thus states are powerless to nullify laws their lawmakers don’t feel like complying with or to arrest federal officials for carrying out their lawful duties. This Clause applies both to valid Acts of Congress themselves and to properly authorized executive orders, as the President’s power to issue an executive order generally flows from an Act of Congress.

Strangely, Toth does not appear to question that his bill is unconstitutional. Rather, he told The Chad Hasty Show on Monday that his goal is to undermine the Constitution itself. In Toth’s words, “we want to do everything we can, especially as pertains to the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause gives the federal government — it basically trumps state law — which is wrong. And we want to do everything we can to undermine that.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/15/1453061/unconstitutional-texas-bill-would-make-enforcing-federal-gun-laws-a-felony/

Here's more ~ Sooz

Texas Bill Follows Wyoming’s Lead In Gun Control – Arrest the Feds
2013/01/15
By Wendi Petit

Texas is a state that has always seen itself as somewhat independent of the federal government. Most recently, its secession petition to the We the People petition website garnered a high number of signatures. Even though there was no chance of it actually happening, there was still a lot of support for it, with over 125,00 signature. Of course, that’s not going to deter the average strong-willed Texan.

The next item on the independence agenda is a bill that would follow the lead of another independent state, but one that most people don’t notice and many probably couldn’t identify on a map – Wyoming. What did Wyoming do that caught the attention of Texas? It will be the first state to introduce a bill that makes secessionists feel like they won a small battle in the much larger war. (Some supporters even warn that any action by the federal government might trigger a civil war.)

Wyoming will soon be introducing a bill called the Firearm Protection Act. Like Wyoming, Texas wants to pass legislation at the state level in order to prevent the federal government from enforcing any restrictions on firearms, accessories or bullets within the state. The Wyoming version would allow for the arrest of federal agents who come to enforce federal laws at the state level – at least one year in jail and/or $5,000 in fines. Since Texas has to do everything big, the fine in Texas may be up to $50,000.

The bill’s author, State Representative Steve Toth, understands that the bill will likely face a court battle. He’s so confident that he says it will pass without a problem. During an interview with a local radio station, he laid out his feelings about what he thinks about the current state of the federal government:


Toth’s mention of the 10th Amendment is one referenced by some on the far right, used when talking about their assumed freedom to defy the federal government on issues they feel only states should be able to legislate. The fact is, history shows that courts rule on the side of government – supremacy of the law of central government over that of the states. As a result, the court battle could likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Some may ask, who is this guy to introduce a bill that he knows will likely end up costing the state’s (i.e. taxpayers’) money? He is a freshman legislator, but he does have the support of the state’s Attorney General, Greg Abbott.

Attorney General Abbott is no pushover when it comes to suing the federal government. He has pursued 20 lawsuits against the federal government at a cost of $2.5 million. That doesn’t take into account any revenue that has or will be lost as a result of refusing to follow federal laws. The state has already forfeited $35 million for Medicaid funding directed at preventive health care for poor women. While making a case sounds like a great movie, it does posit the question, do the taxpayers support such a move? And are state officials willing to arrest federal agents? It seems that the debate and ensuing legislative process for gun control is going to be long, expensive and hard fought.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/15/texas-bill-follows-wyomings-lead-in-gun-control-arrest-the-feds/

That's funny.

In my own view, any public law enforcement personnel who refuse to enforce legally-enacted laws they don't like should be impeached or fired immediately ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating info in original ~ Sooz

Federal laws are not optional
By Steve Benen - Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:49 PM EST

From time to time, state and local officials may not like federal laws. Maybe it's Democratic local officials objecting to Republican policies, perhaps it's Republicans in municipalities who disapprove of Democratic policies, but since the Civil War, there hasn't been any credible debate about whether such laws are optional.

They're not.


As Mueller sees it, it's apparently not up to courts or judges to determine which laws are consistent with Americans' constitutional rights; it's instead up to a local sheriff. And if the local sheriff decides the law doesn't meet the standards of his constitutional analysis, he just won't enforce it.

To put it mildly, this is a problematic approach to a functioning democracy.

Similarly, there are new measures pending in the South Carolina and North Dakota state legislatures on ignoring new federal gun policies -- before policymakers even know what they are -- and Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) wants state legislation that would make any "unconstitutional order" on gun policy taken by President Obama "illegal to enforce in Mississippi by state and local law enforcement."

And who would decide which policies are "unconstitutional"?

Bryant didn't say, exactly. If courts rule a law unconstitutional, then it's a moot point -- no one enforces laws that are struck down -- but if the governor and legislature think they're the arbiters of constitutional analysis, there's a problem.

The rule of law still matters. So does separation of powers and judicial review. I have no idea what, if anything, Congress will pass to help prevent gun violence, but I do know state and local policymakers should realize that they're not in a position to pick and choose which laws they'll honor and which laws they'll ignore.

Update: It looks like some policymakers in Missouri and Texas are thinking along similar lines.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/16/16548694-federal-laws-are-not-optional?lite

just goes to show, when it comes right down to it, these so-called patriots don't even believe in the constitution.

ummm....wouldn't interfering with an officer enforcing the law be a crime. It would be like the Keystone cops with the locals arresting the feds and the feds arresting the locals.