Kansas Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1615

Billy Blogger (me) has several go-to experts that from time to time agree to be quoted in this forum, in this particular case she is a Minuteman Civil Defense Corps volunteer and an attorney for Thomas More Law Center, of Pro-Bono Counsel.

>>>>><<<<<

Below is my question to her and her answer regarding the January 15, 2010 Kansas Senate Concurrent Resolution hearing No. 1615 in Topeka; “claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed; and directing distribution.”

>>>>><<<<<

Kathy - January 15, 2010 in Topeka - What please does this exactly mean? Are they (we) spinning our Kansas wheels? Is the Federally bound by this resolution if passed? I intend to be in Topeka the 15, and really want to know exactly what to expect.

Thanks, Billy

>>>>><<<<

From Kathy Brown, Esq

“No, this isn't wheel spinning. These Resolutions have teeth. The Federal Gov't is indeed 'bound' by such and indeed 2 recent ('92 and '97) 10th Amendment cases have found favor with the Supremes: NY v. USA (gotta love that cite) and the Printz case (it came after the Brady Gun Bill, because the feds delegated to the states the 'duty' to conduct background searches on gun buyers.).”

“The states that've passed such Bills did so relatively recently so it's a bit early to see how they work in practice. There's a great flurry of them recently because of the ObamaCare BS; states are looking for relief from being forced to buy insurance, and from the prohibition from buying your own medical care while you are in a gov't. program (which has refused you that very care). These are plainly unconstitutional directives but that's only established after the Bill is passed (God forbid) and lawsuits filed.”

“These Resolutions are also great in controlling illegal immigration. As you know it's Federal Law which 'controls' that area. However, the rule of law is that Fed. law controls only if it 'occupies the field'. That's legalese for 'doing the whole job'. Since we've got 30 mil of them running around the country, I think the case is made that the Feds have dismally failed to 'occupy the field' with their laws.”

“Anyhow, that's why there's such enormous opposition to these 10th Amendment Resolutions. But now with Obama in power federalizing everything, I think they're enormously important.”

Thank You Kathy