It is unfortunate that not all of us have the firm grasp of the U. S. Constitution that Sen. Brian Nieves, R-Union, has. In is latest legislative report, Nieves explains why Gov. Jay Nixon was wrong to veto all of the nonsensical, non-enforceable bils that Nieves was pushing.
Since this year's regular session commenced, the governor has been on a "veto streak," killing numerous bills that had overwhelming support in the Legislature with his veto pen.
Of those measures that received a red X, three were bills I sponsored or handled in the Missouri Senate. The most recent bill vetoed, on which you may have heard news coverage over your holiday weekend, was my Senate committee substitute for HB 436<http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=hb436&year=2013&code=R>
- a measure creating the Second Amendment Preservation Act and rejecting all federal acts that infringe on Missouri citizens' rights under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The governor cites one of the reasons for vetoing the bill as violation of the Supremacy Clause.
I'm troubled by the governor's lack of understanding of the Supremacy Clause, and I'd like to explain the true meaning behind this clause. First, the Supremacy Clause - Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution - states that federal law is superior to and overrides state law when there is a conflict. I would like to point out a quote from Alexander Hamilton that explains the true intent of the Supremacy Clause. "I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this -
that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government...but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding."
The message of the quote is that when elected officials depart from the foundation of our U.S. Constitution and pass unconstitutional decrees, those decrees are no longer considered absolute.
With regard to our Second Amendment rights, the federal government has touted proposals that would limit our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.
Measures to limit our access to firearms would be unconstitutional, thus
voiding federal supremacy. The bottom line is my Senate committee substitute for HB 436 would not violate the Supremacy Clause - it would call out any abuse of power in the federal government.
To say that federal law always trumps state law is a flawed assertion. Those in power in the federal government, and in our Armed Forces, need to follow the law as outlined by our U.S. Constitution. I was in active military service for 10 years, and I met many people who misunderstood the Supremacy Clause and the meaning behind obligations to follow orders. Many people in the service believed that they had to follow all orders. There's an important differentiating fact - subordinates must only follow lawful orders given by a superior officer. The federal government operating outside its constitutional boundaries is exactly
the same as a superior general giving unlawful orders to the troops.
Yes, a subordinate is required to follow a lawful order from a superior, just as federal laws trump state laws under normal, constitutional circumstances. However, we need to avoid abuse of power and be sure those in authority positions exercise their rights in a constitutional manner.
It's extremely disappointing to me that so many people - including our governor - don't understand the Supremacy Clause and are fooled in their thinking that federal law always conquers all. If the federal government was always superior, we wouldn't have our separate 50 states and separate governments - we would have one supreme government operating in Washington, D.C. This, obviously, is not what we want.
I hope this legislative column is able to shed some light on the true purpose of the Supremacy Clause and the governor's flawed assertion in his veto of the Second Amendment Preservation Act.
1 comment:
This guy is my state senator and I have been trying to be quiet and not commentbut when there is this much unemployment and low wages, why is this the top of the list of Brian Nieves agenda? I think he just is trying to keep his job. His Dad sells used cars in Pacific and Brian is a co ower of that I think. I think sometimes he sub teaches in the Washington School district(If I were Lori Van Leer, I would not allow this guy within 500 feet of any school building)and I think he was involved in some motivational speaking thing that was going to be a big money maker considering his posts on social media.In short, it is my opinion that brian prizes his job now and his political future more than he prizes actuallydoing something. In the staes where this type(it all looks the same)type of legislation has been introduced the states have been notified that it is unconstitutional and willbe opposed by the Justice Department and in the case of Montana which did this type of legislation early on, that state has spent a lot of money in court trying to defend itself. You look it up. If I'm wrong then OK. I guess my point is that in the case of Brian Nieves I am represented by a man whose agenda is to advance Brian Nieves. Look at the crazy stuff he does and think about what a sane senator could have been doing and ask yourself if this guy deserves his job? I think he has had ample time to do something that helps his constituents and all we have gotten is fighting and nutty legislation. I'm weary of his antics and his lack of understanding. Everytime I read one of his postys I am ashamed of my district. Mostly I am afraid that nothing will ever get done as long as hard core party liners like Nieves and Curtman stick to the base junk that got them their jobs and do squat for their districts.They should be ashamed for fooling the underinformed voter and using them to create a good paying job for themselves with retirement benefits while their constituents are jobless and hungry. These guys lack any social conciousness and we need that in our senators and reppresentatives.
Post a Comment