Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
According to the Arizona Republic(an), today is the big day for Arizona's Johnny Rebs who believe they have a right to "interposition, nullification and secession" of federal laws they don't like. "States' rights!" Today at the Capitol:
Topic: Unconstitutional federal acts.
What it’s about: The House Federalism and Fiscal Responsibility Committee will take public input and vote on Senate Concurrent Resolution 1016, which would ask voters to allow the state to ignore federal regulations believed to be unconstitutional.
Details: 2 p.m. House Hearing Room 1, 1700 W. Washington St., Phoenix.
Will they show up wearing their dress greys and waving their Confederate battle jack flags?
On Monday, the Arizona Republic(an) gave the lead Birther-Bircher-Secessionist sponsor of this bill, Sen. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, a "My Turn" column on the opinion pages to spew "Tenther" nonsense with a subtitle of "misinformation abounds" -- it sure as hell does, in his opinion. Resolution aims to protect state sovereignty:
There has been plenty of misinformation about a resolution moving through the Legislature, and I’d like to try to clear it up.
I have sponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution 1016, which would constitutionally allow Arizonans to reject a federal action if they determine it violates the U.S. Constitution. They could do this by passing an initiative or referendum, passing a bill or using legal action.
In addition, the resolution further prohibits the state from using personnel or resources to further enforce a federal action the people have deemed unconstitutional. SCR 1016 passed out of the Senate and is currently in the Arizona House. If it clears the House, it will likely be sent to you, the voter, in 2014.
Right out of the blocks this "Tenther" wants to "clear up" misinformation by stating a whopper of a lie: that his bill is constitutional. It is not. We have been over this before:
See: Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the 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."
See also: The Fourteenth Amendment, you know, that reassertion of federal supremacy enacted after a Civil War fought over the theories of "interposition, nullification and secession," Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That would be federal laws.
See also: The Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 3: "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."
This "Tenther" reveals the source of his "Tenther" nonsense, former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack:
In the past, other elected officials have taken necessary steps to reject unconstitutional federal actions.
For example, the Brady Act, passed in 1993 as an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, imposed a waiting period of up to five days for the purchase of a handgun and subjected purchasers to a background check during that period. Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County challenged the Brady Act’s provisions in federal district court.
He invoked the 10th Amendment, and the district court ruled that the act did in fact violate the 10th Amendment by imposing a mandatory duty on sheriffs to conduct background checks.
SCR 1016 expands upon this type of action, and it seeks to follow the example of Sheriff Mack, expanding upon his efforts to challenge the federal government. In November of next year, you may be able to join in this challenge by supporting our legislation.
What this "Tenther" does not reveal is something I have posted about several times before, but the feckless political reporters in this state will not investigate because they are cowards. Former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack leads a far-right anti-government conspiratorial extremist group, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, and is also associated with the Oath Keepers. Reporters have an obligation to report on these far-right extremists groups who are behind these bills and on our legislators' relationships to these far-right extremist groups. The voters have a right to know whether our legislators are members or supporters of far-right extremist groups that are on the FBI watch list.
As I have posted previously, the Supreme Court has rejected attempts by states to nullify federal law:
For example, in the 1958 Cooper v. Aaron case, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the attempt by Arkansas to nullify judicial decisions on desegregation, on the grounds that "Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the 'supreme Law of the Land' " and the federal courts are the final arbiters of the Constitution. Article VI also states that "the laws of the United States" that are passed pursuant to the Constitution are "the supreme law of the land ... laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Indeed, the Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts as early as 1809.
Conservatives have agreed that nullification is not permitted by the Constitution. In January 2011, Idaho's Republican attorney general released an opinion finding that the state cannot nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, noting that "no court has ever upheld a State effort to nullify a federal law." The right-wing Heritage Foundation stated in February 2012 that "nullification is unconstitutional ... there is no clause or implied power in either the national or the various state constitutions that enables states to veto federal laws unilaterally."
Furthermore, libertarian law professor Randy Barnett -- one of the leading architects of the constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act -- has said "state nullification is kind of a non-starter in our legal system."
Give it up, Johnny Reb. You lost the war. "Interposition, nullification and secession" are not permitted under the U.S. Constitution. Get over it. Quit wasting our time and taxpayer money on litigating bills that are unconstitutional on their face.
UPDATE: In a related matter, the Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports Gun bill advances despite concerns it may be unconstitutional:
Sen. Kelli Ward’s bill to prohibit the enforcement of any new federal gun laws in Arizona, SB 1112, cleared the Senate Rules Committee despite lawmakers’ strong concerns that the legislation, as written, is unconstitutional.
Senate Rules Attorney Stacy Weltsch told lawmakers she had no doubt the measure would be struck down in court. It would prevent federal gun laws limiting semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines from being enforced in Arizona. Various portions of the law would violate the Supremacy Clause, interstate commerce regulations and the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution, she said.
* * *
“I can’t think of a way to do what she wants to do and make it constitutional,” Weltsch said in committee.
Courts routinely strike down measures that try to nullify federal laws, said Weltsch. That was enough reason for Senate Majority Leader Leah Landrum Taylor to argue the bill should be left for dead in committee rather than make its way to court and unnecessarily clog the state’s legal system.
“If it’s going to be ruled as unconstitutional, we should not move this forward,” said Landrum Taylor, D-Phoenix.