U.S. Issues Arizona posturing for de facto seccession - Page 5

Taco John · 02-02-2011, 02:24 PM

File this under "nullification isn't as dead as some would like you to believe it is."

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/EJMontini/117684

E.J. Montini's Columns & Blog
E.J. Montini is a columnist for The Arizona Republic.

Arizona to secede (without OFFICIALLY doing so)

Members of the state Legislature, including Arizona's de facto governor, Senate President Russell Pearce, have introduced a bill that essentially would have Arizona secede from the union without having to do so officially.

Really.

It's called SB1433, (See it here.) It creates a 12-member committee within the legislature that could "vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government…"

Committee members themselves would decide this, then pass along their recommendation to the full Legislature. If, in turn, a majority of state lawmakers go along with the committee then, according to the bill, "this state and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order."

The nullification committee also would be permitted to review all existing federal laws to see if our legislative geniuses want to toss them out as well.

In every legislative session in every state throughout the land there are proposals like this, usually made by a few fringe members who know their proposal has no chance but file it anyway to serve some personal or political agenda.

In this instance, legislators here -- who claim to be strict constitutionalists -- seem fairly willing to ignore what is commonly called the "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution (as well as the Fourteenth Amendment), and which more or less say that federal law supersedes state law.

A state or a person can challenge such laws in court. But a state can't on its own simply declare a federal law to be unconsitutional.

Legislators who propose such things often are quietly patted on the heads and laughed off by their colleagues.

In our case, however, the legislation is being proposed by, among others, Sen. Pearce, the most powerful person in state government.

So, as wacky as the proposal is, that makes it much less of a laughing matter.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Donger · 02-02-2011, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

And?

I think you are over-reacting.

Donger · 02-02-2011, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

They still have a NATURAL right to secede and the notes from the Constitutional Convention show that the Framers intended the union to be voluntary. The discussed the use of force if a state wanted to leave and they were against it. They didn't include it anywhere did they? Nope. I suppose some weren't supportive of that like Hamilton. They can leave despite representation....as the south had that in their War for Southern Independence as well. In fact, as I posted here in arguments with Amnorix, the papers at the time discussed that it was voluntary as well. Many thought that even up to then. It's been since Lincoln we think we're a permanently tied national union. That's the Hamiltonianism that Lincoln set in. It's false. So instead he jailed congressmen and journalist and shut down papers for opposing him too. There's no language in the Constitution barring any state from leaving. PERIOD!

Wow. You (and people like you) actually want the dissolution of our union, don't you.

**petegz28** · 02-02-2011, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mad Crapper

His socks are too loose and his pants are too tight.

Jenson has yet to enter the working world and feel the impacts of the decisions made in D.C.

BucEyedPea · 02-02-2011, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Wow. You (and people like you) actually want the dissolution of our union, don't you.

I edited. You're making a strawman now too. I prefer not to have dissolution ultimately. I just think this is a valid check and balance on our central govt when it goes too far. So the feds can back off too to prevent it. See how easy that was.

Garcia Bronco · 02-02-2011, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

This is a fool's errand. State-level nullification of a federal constitutional law does not exist. You cant wave a magic wand at the supremacy clause. If a state doesn't like federal law and that law is determined by the federal appeals or supreme courts to be constitutional, then they should either live with it or secede and declare themselves to be an independent sovereign nation. If they don't or can't do that, then federal law will be enforced, by the U.S. marshals and the army if necessary.

They are reaffirming the 10th Amendment.

**petegz28** · 02-02-2011, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

I think you are over-reacting.

It's over-reacting when I supposrt a State doing what it has to do to fight the Fed Gov over-stepping their power boundries?

Jenson71 · 02-02-2011, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mad Crapper

You are a virgin!

The Catholic Church, which you claim to be a part of, holds that sex is a sacred gift saved for marriage. I would hope that all unmarried people are virgins.

Are you with the Church there?

**petegz28** · 02-02-2011, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Wow. You (and people like you) actually want the dissolution of our union, don't you.

Let me ask you, Donger, what's the point of being solvent if it means turning any and verything over to the Fed Gov despite the will of the people?

Jenson71 · 02-02-2011, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

Jenson has yet to enter the working world and feel the impacts of the decisions made in D.C.

The working world = something pete can't make it in.

**petegz28** · 02-02-2011, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenson71

The Catholic Church, which you claim to be a part of, holds that sex is a sacred gift saved for marriage. I would hope that all unmarried people are virgins.

Are you with the Church there?

Unless it involves Priests and little boys.

Donger · 02-02-2011, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

It's over-reacting when I supposrt a State doing what it has to do to fight the Fed Gov over-stepping their power boundries?

What exactly are you referring to?

**petegz28** · 02-02-2011, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenson71

The working world = something pete can't make it in.

I sure do put in a lot of hours for not making it in the working world.

The Mad Crapper · 02-02-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenson71

The Catholic Church, which you claim to be a part of, holds that sex is a sacred gift saved for marriage. I would hope that all unmarried people are virgins.

Are you with the Church there?

Jenson's never been laid.

Donger · 02-02-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

Let me ask you, Donger, what's the point of being solvent if it means turning any and verything over to the Fed Gov despite the will of the people?

"The people" elected this government, pete.

BucEyedPea · 02-02-2011, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mad Crapper

Jenson's never been laid.

He's a Catholic and is saving himself for marriage. NTTAWWT

02-02-2011, 02:24 PM
Taco John 12on Paul Join Date: Jun 2001 Casino cash: $10084552	Arizona posturing for de facto seccession File this under "nullification isn't as dead as some would like you to believe it is." http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/EJMontini/117684 E.J. Montini's Columns & Blog E.J. Montini is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. Arizona to secede (without OFFICIALLY doing so) Members of the state Legislature, including Arizona's de facto governor, Senate President Russell Pearce, have introduced a bill that essentially would have Arizona secede from the union without having to do so officially. Really. It's called SB1433, (See it here.) It creates a 12-member committee within the legislature that could "vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government…" Committee members themselves would decide this, then pass along their recommendation to the full Legislature. If, in turn, a majority of state lawmakers go along with the committee then, according to the bill, "this state and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order." The nullification committee also would be permitted to review all existing federal laws to see if our legislative geniuses want to toss them out as well. In every legislative session in every state throughout the land there are proposals like this, usually made by a few fringe members who know their proposal has no chance but file it anyway to serve some personal or political agenda. In this instance, legislators here -- who claim to be strict constitutionalists -- seem fairly willing to ignore what is commonly called the "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution (as well as the Fourteenth Amendment), and which more or less say that federal law supersedes state law. A state or a person can challenge such laws in court. But a state can't on its own simply declare a federal law to be unconsitutional. Legislators who propose such things often are quietly patted on the heads and laughed off by their colleagues. In our case, however, the legislation is being proposed by, among others, Sen. Pearce, the most powerful person in state government. So, as wacky as the proposal is, that makes it much less of a laughing matter. Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Posts: 49,361

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode