Sheriff Richard Mack: Fed’s Can’t Tell States What to do according to Printz v. United States!

“This case already proves
that nationalized socialistic health care is unconstitutional,
and the states do not have to go along.”

Regarding the supremacy clause,
“The Constitution is supreme,
not the federal government.”

– Sheriff Richard Mack

Transcribed by Jeff Fenske

• • • • •

From: Can Supremacy Clause apply to unenforced federal law?

The Justice department is suing the state of Arizona — over its law attempting to actually enforce federal immigration law — using the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as one of its grounds.

As usual when it comes to this august document, we turn to Seth Lipsky’s “The Citizen’s Constitution” for guidance and cites. Among these is the case of Printz v. United States in which Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court about a federal attempt to force a Montana Sheriff, Jay Printz, to enforce federal gun laws.

The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program,” Scalia writes. “It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

[youtube=]Sheriff Richard Mack: Fed’s Can’t Tell States What to do! – Alex Jones Tv 1/4

Alex also talks with Sheriff Richard Mack, a former sheriff in Graham County, Arizona, who sued the Clinton administration during the mid-90s over the Brady Bill. He currently educates sheriffs nation-wide about their powers to protect their constituents from abuse by the federal government. Mack is the author of The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.