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 — 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. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact my Capitol office. Thank you and God bless.