Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
I posted about this previously, Arizona's Neo-Confederate dead-enders and secession:
Remember the "Checks and Balances in Government" citizens initiative aka the "nullification" initiative from a nutty Scottsdale millionaire businessman, Jack Biltis, that failed to qualify for the ballot due to an insufficient number of signatures last year? Businessman spends $1.2 million to put nullification measure on ballot.
Biltis has decided to bypass the expense of another initiative effort and to take the easy route of getting his fellow Neo-Confederate dead-enders in the legislature to repackage his "nullification" initiative as a constitutional amendment referred to the ballot by the Arizona legislature. SCR1016 is sponsored by the usual suspects, Sen. Rich Crandell (R-Heber), Sen. Judy Burges (R-Sun City West), and cosponsors Sen. Cap'n Al Melvin (R-Saddlebrooke), and Rep. Brenda Barton (R-Payson).
The ballot measure would amend the state Constitution to allow the state to reject any federal action the public deems to be a violation of the US Constitution by passing an initiative, referendum or bill, or by using any other legal remedy. The proposal also prohibits the state from using its employees or resources to enforce or cooperate with a federal action that’s rejected by the people.
It turns out that Jack Biltis has a lobbyist buddy who helped him out in getting these yahoos to sponsor SCR1016: the wannabe tinhorn dictator of Tucson, Jonathan "Payday" Paton. If there is a bad idea, you can bet this tool is behind it.
it's a sad day in Arizona. On Tuesday, the Neo-Confederate dead-enders and Tea-Publican Birthers-Birchers-Secessionists put the long discredited and unconstitutional theories of "nullification, interposition and secession" on the 2014 ballot. The late night comics rejoice!
So Laurie Roberts, how's that "De-Kook the Capitol" project working out for ya? The Arizona Republic reports, Arizona could deny resources for federal laws under bill:
Arizona voters in 2014 will decide whether the state can deny resources to federal laws or programs it deems unconstitutional.
The Legislature on Tuesday gave final approval to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1016, its latest effort to flex state muscle against the federal government. The measure will go on the November 2014 ballot. It proposes to allow either the governor and state Legislature or voters to refuse to use state personnel and resources on any federal law or action deemed to be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.
Sen. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, sponsored the bill.
“We need to stand up and use our sovereign rights and this is another tool in the toolbox to be able to do that,” he said in a public hearing on the bill.
Former state lawmaker and unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate Jonathan Paton and Phoenix businessman Jack Biltis are behind the resolution.
This is a second attempt at passing such a measure by Biltis, who runs an employer-services firm. He spent more than $1 million of his money on an unsuccessful 2012 effort to put a similar measure on the ballot. The Checks and Balances in Government initiative lacked enough valid signatures to qualify, elections officials said.
Biltis said in committee hearings on SCR 1016 that he would again invest his own money in campaigns for the measure.
Proving what an effin' imbecile he is, Jonathan "Payday" Paton testified in committeee hearings:
- Paton told lawmakers during a committee hearing that he believed the measure is constitutional based on Supreme Court rulings. He said the court clearly ruled the federal government cannot “commandeer” a state to act in support of a federal law.
- “We can’t stop the federal government directly ... but we can say how we are going to use our resources within the environs of our own state,” he said. “We have the power as a state to decide what’s right for our state.”
- “I don’t envision this as a left or right issue,” he said. “I envision this as a checks and balances issue.”
Don't quit your day job as a corrupt lobbyist, "Payday," because you don't know shit about constitutional law.
House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, got it exactly right: this bill is “a complete waste of time.”
“It’s talking about not wasting money on things we feel are unconstitutional at the state, but the referendum itself is unconstitutional,” he said. “You can’t supersede federal authority.” [See the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2.]
Campbell said there are already checks and balances against the federal government overstepping its bounds — the courts. [Federal judicial review, Marbury v. Madison. The states do not get to decide what is constitutional.]
And that, he said, is exactly where this would end up. Campbell said if voters or the Legislature decide to deny services for a certain federal action, the federal government will likely sue and the courts will still be the deciding factor in the end.
Our "lawless legislature" was highlighted by the Arizona Republic in this recent report, Controversial Arizona laws rack up big legal fees, a must read on how the ideological extremists of the Tea-Publican Birthers-Birchers-Secessionists are pissing away your tax dollars pursuing their unconstitutional and unlawful legislation.
A similar ballot measure to declare "state sovereignty" over federal lands in Arizona, Proposition 120, was on the 2012 ballot and was soundly defeated by Arizona voters, 1,308,299 votes to 623.461 votes. Now we must defeat this "nullification, interposition and secession" measure in 2014.
But it is not enough to simply defeat this measure. Every member of the legislature who voted in favor of "nullification, interposition and secession" violated their oath of office to defend the U.S. Constitution. It is an act of insurrection and sedition against the U.S. government. It is disloyal and un-American. It is not to be tolerated and they should not be serving in elected office.
Senate Vote Detail. House Vote Detail. Let me make it easy for you, Laurie Roberts. It was a straight party line vote. Sens. Rich Crandall and Lynne Pancrazi were absent and did not vote in the Senate. Rep. Thomas Forese was absent and did not vote in the House. Unbelievably, Rep. Albert Hale (D-LD 7) was the only Democrat who voted in favor. This must have been a mistake. Hale needs to explain his vote.