We all know that the hard-core left loathes the Constitution and the founders who wrote it. After all, virtually everything they think, say, and do is unconstitutional.

When you boil it down, the left is for two things: a socialist utopia and a massive central government to manage it.

Leftists like those at ThinkProgress are as hard-core as it gets, so I have to laugh when they attempt to use the Constitution to prove a point against the right.

Radical lefty Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress attempts to do just that, as he posted a piece entitled "A Texas Lawmakers Bizarre Plan to Secede from the Union One Law at a Time."

Naturally the photo he posted accompanying the article was a Confederate battle flag because people have an immediate visceral hatred for it and what it represents, and of course Texas's constant use of that particular flag – which was and is… never.

Millhiser's article explains that "Under an unconstitutional proposal by Texas state representative Dan Flynn (R), just two people in the state of Texas – the state House Speaker and Lieut. Governor – would effectively have the power to suspend any federal law within Texas's borders, at least temporarily."

That can't be? One or two men just unilaterally deciding not to follow federal law? Oh wait. Isn't that what Obama has been doing for most of his tenure? The irony is rich, don't you think?

Apparently, the two Texans will set up a 14 member "Joint Legislative Committee on Nullification" – eight Republicans and six Democrats. According to Millhiser, having eight Republicans is "stacking the committee with loyalists" who "could effectively pick and choose which federal laws they wish to nullify, so long as they agree with each other about what laws to target. Or, at least, they could do so if this proposal were constitutional."

He writes that representative Flynn's proposal "claims that a state can unilaterally declare a federal law unconstitutional and thus void within the state's borders." And here's the funny part – the part where a leftist quotes the Constitution. This is Millhiser's gotcha moment – that moment where he, the constitutional scholar reveals that "the Constitution, however, explicitly provides that duly enacted federal laws 'shall be supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.'"

Well, the jig is up. He's got them dead to rights – except he doesn't.

See, he either ignorantly or conveniently leaves out a very important portion of Article VI. I'm going to say he's ignorant. Most likely he, like other lefties, just blindly parrot what they've read or heard without question.

What he leaves out is the whole "Pursuance" thing. Article VI actually states that "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…"

In other words, the federal government can't pass laws it doesn't have the constitutional authority to pass, as it states in the 10th amendment.

The argument only works for Millhiser if he leaves that part of the sentence out. I guess I'll change my opinion of him from simply ignorant to purposely lying by omission.

By omitting that section of the sentence we can conclude that the left does indeed understand the "Article," doesn't like it, and so must twist it around and omit portions to meet their ends.

Whether or not you agree with what Texas is attempting to do, in my opinion, they have every authority to do so; and, frankly, I applaud them or anyone for trying to rein in our federal government.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.