…Earlier this week, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed into law the “Second Amendment Protection Act,” a bill that reasserts the state’s role in protecting the right to keep and bear arms of those living there. The bill reads, in part:
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.
In conjunction with the above clause, the bill defines what is meant by “the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States” and contends that it isn’t based off a decision by the Supreme Court.
The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861.
By definition, state and local agents cannot enforce any acts or actions that are “null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.” Based off this text, the state of Kansas now cannot participate in any federal gun control measures that restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms as understood when Kansas became a state in 1861.
In Steve’s blog “report” on the issue, he quoted me as saying that this bill is “potentially the most important state level bill passed in modern American history.”
He didn’t take too kindly to that opinion, though, and spent some time talking about my “hyperbole” and the “cause for alarm” over the fact that Brownback signed this bill into law.
In fact, Steve spent quite a bit of time explaining how such an act is a waste of time. He even said the law doesn’t make “any sense at all.”
So here’s some sense for our propagandist. According to Steve, the courts, and the courts alone, determine what the Constitution actually means. But that flies in the face of what James Madison had to say. You know Madison — the guy referred to as the “Father of the Constitution.” In his own words:
The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.
In Federalist #46, Madison also told us how to deal with things that the States determined were unconstitutional. He wrote: