tpm: Arizona Senate passes bill to let state nullify Federal laws

[GhostofSparta]

Arizona does have the right to leave the Union whenever it wishes.

Interesting. He disagrees.

[skinfan133]

I disagree. The Union is perpetual and eternal. No state has the right to secede.

Prove it. Virginia v West Virginia and the SCOTUS disagree with you. Secondly, the Constitution needed 9/13 states to ratify it to go into effect. New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia all included provisions for secession when they ratified the Constitution. The Constitution only went into effect based on the fact that three states reserved the right to leave the voluntary union at any time they wished to. Virginia cited this provision of its ratification of the Constitution when it seceded from the United States. The argument that the states had and have no legal right to leave a voluntary contract is disgustingly absurd.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You think that proves anything? I am well aware of the supremacy clause. The supremacy clause is about contradicting laws.

Yes, and a state law that supposedly nullifies Federal law IS a contradicting law.....game over.

[DallasCowboyFan156]

Prove it. Virginia v West Virginia and the SCOTUS disagree with you. Secondly, the Constitution needed 9/13 states to ratify it to go into effect. New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia all included provisions for secession when they ratified the Constitution. The Constitution only went into effect based on the fact that three states reserved the right to leave the voluntary union at any time they wished to. Virginia cited this provision of its ratification of the Constitution when it seceded from the United States. The argument that the states had and have no legal right to leave a voluntary contract is disgustingly absurd.

In regards to your example of Virginia v. West Virginia, I contend that this case does not deal, in any way, with the question at hand. The question put before us is one of secession from the national Union not secession from a state, or as it may more properly be put, the division of one state into two. As for your second point, James Madison, upon hearing of the conditional ratification of the Constitution, rejected it as meaningless. He claimed that the Congress of the United States would not accept a conditional ratification. I would add, that you seem to be a holder of the compact theory of the Constitution which I completely reject. Rather, I assert that the Constitution is a social contract among the people of the United States. Hence the words "We the People" and not "We the States". I also disagree with the claim that the Supreme Court has not ruled in my favor. Rather, in the Supreme Court case Texas v. White the court ruled definitively that secession was illegal and that the Union was "perpetual" and "indissoluble."

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that

the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,

and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." [n12] Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. [p726]

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

[skinfan133]

Yes, and a state law that supposedly nullifies Federal law IS a contradicting law.....game over.

just because you say it does not make it so...

A contradictory law is where a Federal law says one thing and a state law of the same subject says another. nullification is where a law is entirely thrown out. Unless that federal law specifically said it couldn't be nullified, I don't see how you could say there is a contradiction, there is simply a throwing out of the law and replacing it with nothing.

Again, I originally said that I think the case for nullification is dubious at best, but the case for a specific prohibition of nullification is even more dubious. You've just been brainwashed to the point where you can't even think critically about the subject and just reject it because you were taught that it was wrong as a child. Personally, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment that established a nullification procedure, but states rights have been dead for over a century. Mostly because no one has the guts to say that Lincoln was completely wrong on just about everything he opened his nasty trap about. (And don't even go down that road insinuating that I want a return to slavery or something ridiculous like that. I'm a libertarian, I ****ing hate the idea of slavery, but is it so wrong to think we shouldn't have destroyed our Constitution and killed over half a million people to end it?)

---------- Post added March-6th-2011 at 10:08 PM ----------

In regards to your example of Virginia v. West Virginia, I contend that this case does not deal, in any way, with the question at hand. The question put before us is one of secession from the national Union not secession from a state, or as it may more properly be put, the division of one state into two. As for your second point, James Madison, upon hearing of the conditional ratification of the Constitution, rejected it as meaningless. He claimed that the Congress of the United States would not accept a conditional ratification. I would add, that you seem to be a holder of the compact theory of the Constitution which I completely reject. Rather, I assert that the Constitution is a social contract among the people of the United States. Hence the words "We the People" and not "We the States". I also disagree with the claim that the Supreme Court has not ruled in my favor. Rather, in the Supreme Court case Texas v. White the court ruled definitively that secession was illegal and that the Union was "perpetual" and "indissoluble."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

My point with Virginia v. West Virginia was that the SCOTUS recognized that Virginia was not a part of the United States at the time West Virginia separated from Virginia. The whole reason that West Virginia exists is that SCOTUS recognized that legally Virginia was a part of a foreign nation in 1863.

As for Texas v. White, this line stands out to me, "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." Its amazing to me that even in the wake of the Civil War, SCOTUS recognizes at least some right to leave the Union. incredibly though, they seem to be of the opinion that it would require force in order to do so... That is unless all other 49 states agreed that one could leave. See how convoluted this logic is? The Constitution is, despite what the Supreme Court or any other entity says, is in fact a contract by which each state with the others created the federal government. There is no other way to frame it because that is simply the way it was and is. The States existed before the Federal Government, and voluntarily ceded authority to said government. Whenever you are in contract, you always reserve the right to break that contract if it is violated by any other party to that contract. The only thing that turned that logic on its head was a war. Whoever has more guns does not get to rewrite the laws of the universe. A government cannot alter objective reality, and therefore just because the federal government calls a contract something else does not mean it ceases to be a contract.

Madison's opinion is interesting but not especially relevant. I understand his position, and may even be inclined to agree with it, but the fact of the matter is those states did ratify it with precondition and their ratification made the constitution effective.

[AsburySkinsFan]

just because you say it does not make it so...

A contradictory law is where a Federal law says one thing and a state law of the same subject says another. nullification is where a law is entirely thrown out.

What part of "Supreme Law of the Land" don't you understand?

No state has the authority to write any law that would trump the Constitution or Federal law so says Article 6. States are UNDER the authority of FEDERAL law, they cannot nullify it just because they want to any more than a 3rd grader can nullify school rules just because they want to.

[skinfan133]

What part of "Supreme Law of the Land" don't you understand?

No state has the authority to write any law that would trump the Constitution or Federal law so says Article 6. States are UNDER the authority of FEDERAL law, they cannot nullify it just because they want to any more than a 3rd grader can nullify school rules just because they want to.

You are completely missing the point, the States can't nullify the Constitution, but they can reject Unconstitutional laws. A theoretical example would be California nullifying federal drug laws. You are fundamentally missing the point, and I love how you continue to ignore what I've been saying about Nullification in general, specifically THIS:

"Again, I originally said that I think the case for nullification is dubious at best, but the case for a specific prohibition of nullification is even more dubious. You've just been brainwashed to the point where you can't even think critically about the subject and just reject it because you were taught that it was wrong as a child. Personally, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment that established a nullification procedure, but states rights have been dead for over a century. Mostly because no one has the guts to say that Lincoln was completely wrong on just about everything he opened his nasty trap about. (And don't even go down that road insinuating that I want a return to slavery or something ridiculous like that. I'm a libertarian, I ****ing hate the idea of slavery, but is it so wrong to think we shouldn't have destroyed our Constitution and killed over half a million people to end it?)"

but please, continue to re-frame the argument as you see fit. We're just going to have to conclude that you, as a statist, will never accept anything I say about limited government, and I as a skeptic of government will never accept your shilling for autocracy. And around the tree we go.

[Madison Redskin]

Whenever you are in contract, you always reserve the right to break that contract if it is violated by any other party to that contract.

That's not quite true. A non-breaching party may terminate the contract only under certain conditions.

In any case, what provision of the contract (i.e., the Constitution) did the federal government break that entitled the South to secede? If you read the Southern States' complaints regarding the tyranny of the federal government, I think you will be hard-pressed to make the case that the federal government had committed a material breach of the Constitution.

[skinfan133]

That's not quite true. A non-breaching party may terminate the contract only under certain conditions.

In any case, what provision of the contract (i.e., the Constitution) did the federal government break that entitled the South to secede? If you read the Southern States' complaints regarding the tyranny of the federal government, I think you will be hard-pressed to make the case that the federal government had committed a material breach of the Constitution.

I have to be extremely careful here, and I will. I do not wish to be misinterpreted, so please bear with me.

Just because slavery is evil, does not mean that South Carolina was making an illogical and Unconstitutional argument. We tend to associate the fact that because the South primarily seceded over slavery, that their entire rationale was wrong. They were doing something completely legal for all the wrong reasons. There were an abundance of other issues relating to and unrelated to slavery, but only someone very ignorant would assert that slavery was not a key issues for the southern confederates. But indeed, if you read South Carolina's declaration they are making a completely valid constitutional argument. Not saying they were morally right for doing so on behalf of an evil institution, but it was indeed the correct constitutional argument.

Furthermore, reasons that are not primarily listed in these four states declarations are the tariffs of the the 1830's and subsequent sectional economic provocations. The notion however, that the States are sovereign entities needs to be examined outside of the initial justification in terms of slavery. Why is this itself a bad idea pursuant of a limited government? Above all else the preservation of Liberty should be the primary concern of a government, and the government that governs least governs best. The civil war is a tragedy that could have been avoided. Our Republic was replaced with an empire in the name of good. The abolishment of slavery is itself a wonderful thing, but I think that a war was not necessary to do so, neither was the destruction of limited republican government.

When arguing on behalf of states rights its very hard to effectively separate slavery from a pro-Republic argument. Hopefully I've been able to do so.

[Madison Redskin]

I don't agree with your assertion that SC's "constitutional argument" was right then or now. However, I don't think anyone is going to accuse you of supporting slavery. So, I understand your point, even if I disagree with it.

[skinfan133]

I don't agree with your assertion that SC's "constitutional argument" was right then or now. However, I don't think anyone is going to accuse you of supporting slavery. So, I understand your point, even if I disagree with it.

I can live with that. lol

you have no idea how many times people have accused me of being a racist or a bigot when I assert these sort of things. It's understandable I suppose, but it hurts deep down as a libertarian to be accused of those things. I wish people would approach these issues with open minds more. People have been so conditioned on these aspects of government that it really is a lost battle before anyone even says a word...

[NoCalMike]

California may decide they can allow medical marijuana, but in case you have been asleep the last decade are so, the Fed still raids the medical marijuana shops and growing operations, because technically it is still in violation of federal law. So in other words, until it becomes legally Federally, it is really a gray area.

[skinfan133]

California may decide they can allow medical marijuana, but in case you have been asleep the last decade are so, the Fed still raids the medical marijuana shops and growing operations, because technically it is still in violation of federal law. So in other words, until it becomes legally Federally, it is really a gray area.

wasn't claiming California nullified federal law, It was a hypothetical situation. In fact, its a great example of the supremacy clause and contradictory laws. I have no problem with the Federal government enforcing its drug laws because California has not declared them Unconstitutional. What would be interesting is if California did declare marijuana prohibition Unconstitutional and void within its borders. California law enforcement would then be legally required to detain DEA agents in the rpocess of making raids. Completely unlikely hypothetical situation, but still interesting to think about.

---------- Post added March-6th-2011 at 11:45 PM ----------

I feel like I should go ahead and define how I would see nullification as an actual state power.

I'd like to see an amendment that would set out such a state power, something kind of like state constitutional conventions for proposing and ratifying new amendments. A nullification convention if you will for lack of a better definition. If 3/4ths of the states resolved to nullify a specific federal law in a convention, I think that would be a good, rarely used process as an ultimate check on federal power.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You are completely missing the point, the States can't nullify the Constitution, but they can reject Unconstitutional laws. A theoretical example would be California nullifying federal drug laws. You are fundamentally missing the point, and I love how you continue to ignore what I've been saying about Nullification in general, specifically THIS:

They cannot reject unconstitutional laws, because the only way a law is determined unconstitutional is by the Supreme Court of the United States (NOT by some State Legislature and most certainly not by 12 members of that legislature by majority vote i.e. 7 members; total and absolute none-sense., and if SCOTUS does so then the law is no more. No state can nullify Federal law. And California didn't nullify Federal law, as has been said before in this very thread by myself and others, Federal authorities are still able to enforce Federal drug laws within California even if Californian authorities are not able to do so. So as it would seem, you are the one missing the point.

BTW, this has NOTHING to do with me being a "statist" as you called it, it has everything to do with being able to read the text of the Constitution of the United States.

[skinfan133]

They cannot reject unconstitutional laws, because the only way a law is determined unconstitutional is by the Supreme Court of the United States (NOT by some State Legislature and most certainly not by 12 members of that legislature by majority vote i.e. 7 members; total and absolute none-sense., and if SCOTUS does so then the law is no more. No state can nullify Federal law. And California didn't nullify Federal law, as has been said before in this very thread by myself and others, Federal authorities are still able to enforce Federal drug laws within California even if Californian authorities are not able to do so. So as it would seem, you are the one missing the point.

BTW, this has NOTHING to do with me being a "statist" as you called it, it has everything to do with being able to read the text of the Constitution of the United States.

you are so ignorant I can't even wrap my mind around it. You are arguing things that I MYSELF HAVE SAID. How about you look at the post I made directly before you birthed this bowel movement of a post? I flesh out exactly what you're talking about in regard to California. Secondly judicial review is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER. SCOTUS has no technical authority to declare anything constitutional or not either BTW. You are fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. You're also ignoring key points I'm trying to make. Madison Redskin is doing a much better job at this than you, at least he understands what I'm arguing about.

This is seriously like trying to discuss physics with a 5 year old. I truly and honestly think you are incapable of understanding what I'm trying to say about nullification. Either that or you're deceiving yourself as you are selectively ignoring whole portions of my posts addressing the very things you're criticizing me about.

so once more, with feeling, lets try this again:

Again, I originally said that I think the case for nullification is dubious at best, but the case for a specific prohibition of nullification is even more dubious. You've just been brainwashed to the point where you can't even think critically about the subject and just reject it because you were taught that it was wrong as a child. Personally, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment that established a nullification procedure, but states rights have been dead for over a century. Mostly because no one has the guts to say that Lincoln was completely wrong on just about everything he opened his nasty trap about. (And don't even go down that road insinuating that I want a return to slavery or something ridiculous like that. I'm a libertarian, I ****ing hate the idea of slavery, but is it so wrong to think we shouldn't have destroyed our Constitution and killed over half a million people to end it?)

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I have to be extremely careful here, and I will. I do not wish to be misinterpreted, so please bear with me.

Just because slavery is evil, does not mean that South Carolina was making an illogical and Unconstitutional argument. We tend to associate the fact that because the South primarily seceded over slavery, that their entire rationale was wrong. They were doing something completely legal for all the wrong reasons. There were an abundance of other issues relating to and unrelated to slavery, but only someone very ignorant would assert that slavery was not a key issues for the southern confederates. But indeed, if you read South Carolina's declaration they are making a completely valid constitutional argument. Not saying they were morally right for doing so on behalf of an evil institution, but it was indeed the correct constitutional argument.

Furthermore, reasons that are not primarily listed in these four states declarations are the tariffs of the the 1830's and subsequent sectional economic provocations. The notion however, that the States are sovereign entities needs to be examined outside of the initial justification in terms of slavery. Why is this itself a bad idea pursuant of a limited government? Above all else the preservation of Liberty should be the primary concern of a government, and the government that governs least governs best. The civil war is a tragedy that could have been avoided. Our Republic was replaced with an empire in the name of good. The abolishment of slavery is itself a wonderful thing, but I think that a war was not necessary to do so, neither was the destruction of limited republican government.

When arguing on behalf of states rights its very hard to effectively separate slavery from a pro-Republic argument. Hopefully I've been able to do so.

This is one of the most well articulated posts I've ever read. I disagree with you on principle quite wholly, but I still love the fact that you compiled a post with strong rhetoric and expertly articulated your limited government views as separate from the issue of slavery. I personally love big government, love paying taxes in return for lots of things, and dislike the idea of lots of different rules state by state. Still, I applaud the post, primarily because it was a nice disassociation from the filth that trends around these parts sometimes.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm sorry, you're right...states can nullify whatever Federal laws they like as they have that authority.......

ignore Article 6 they didn't mean it when they wrote it.

[Thiebear]

I'm sorry, you're right...states can nullify whatever Federal laws they like as they have that authority.......

ignore Article 6 they didn't mean it when they wrote it.

For the 7th or so time you've quoted this: Can you give us an exmaple where Article 6 doesn't apply?

Or are you saying there should be no other articles, this is the only paragraph that matters within the United States.

---------- Post added March-7th-2011 at 07:03 AM ----------

Let me help you.

Read that first instead of the cliff notes. Then read the "intent"

Still think they are just creating a committee to recommend what laws to challenge? In their intent they are justifying their ability to block the federal government. You don't need to be a constitutional scholar to read a bill written by a pack of idiots.

---------- Post added March-6th-2011 at 08:43 PM ----------

If they are really out of patience state assets would have been used to to secure their own borders and they wouldn't be ****ing about costs. Apparently they have plenty of patience left.

Then again this is all a sham brought about by those gaining tremendous power through disingenuous posturing.

Actually my entire posting is:

The committees recommends the laws that Congress is overstepping on. Two bodies of 6 with no more than 4 of either dems/repubs.

The full Legislature has xyz days to review and act if hey want wish.

Upon that the Courts decide if they are correct and it would end up going to the Scotus.

The Scotus is final authority on "that' Legislation if they deem to see it after the appelates.

Thats how i read it.

The States overstep their roles in saying the Feds are overstepping their roles and the Courts decide who is correct based on the Artilces in the Constitution and sometime what Europe thinks.

[skinfan133]

I'm sorry, you're right...states can nullify whatever Federal laws they like as they have that authority.......

ignore Article 6 they didn't mean it when they wrote it.

Okay, for the 4th time. This time with extra bold and italics just so you get the point:

I originally said that I think the case for nullification is dubious at best, but the case for a specific prohibition of nullification is even more dubious. You've just been brainwashed to the point where you can't even think critically about the subject and just reject it because you were taught that it was wrong as a child. Personally, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment that established a nullification procedure, but states rights have been dead for over a century.

if you don't respond to this a 5th time, I'm just going to assume you're a sad, middle-aged troll. But please, by all means, continue to flesh out your argument as you have been doing, I mean, it's not like I've been addressing these concerns of yours and you've been selectively responding to my posts, amirite?

[JMS]

What part of "Supreme Law of the Land" don't you understand?

No state has the authority to write any law that would trump the Constitution or Federal law so says Article 6. States are UNDER the authority of FEDERAL law, they cannot nullify it just because they want to any more than a 3rd grader can nullify school rules just because they want to.

Sure they can AS. It's called secession. Arizona tried that before actually. During the civil war Arizona seceded. They didn't join the south, and they weren't a state yet but when the federals pulled back all the soldiers to fight the civil war, the Indians rose up and slaughtered everybody; and the citizens of Arizona were so pissed that they seceded on general principle. Didn't work out very well for them....

Of coarse you are correct. This Arizona law is more about it's senators being ignorant than it is about Arizona in 2011 wanting to secede. A trait pretty common with the tea party and libertarians in general.

[skinsphan]

Isn't this what Cali has done with marijuana law and sanctuary policies?....though perhaps less formally

No it isn't what happened in Cali. Obama said he was going to respect state laws and not waste money fighting what the people of California voted for.

[twa]

No it isn't what happened in Cali. Obama said he was going to respect state laws and not waste money fighting what the people of California voted for.

Whereas he is not respecting other states choices and is wasting money fighting their choices

So he IS allowing state nullification in deed and act...selectively....wheres Larry with equal under the law?

[JMS]

I originally said that I think the case for nullification is dubious at best, but the case for a specific prohibition of nullification is even more dubious. You've just been brainwashed to the point where you can't even think critically about the subject and just reject it because you were taught that it was wrong as a child. Personally, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment that established a nullification procedure, but states rights have been dead for over a century.

?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

People think they can take that sentence out of 200 years of context and devine what the founding fathers meant by it. Thus some folks think the states are really in control here and the federal government has somehow usurped to much power. Likely think the wrong side won the civil war too.

Let's review how the real world works, because the Feds have been dealing with upstart states for more than 200 years very sucessfully. Arizona recieves a net positive amount of federal dollars. If Arizona wants to go up against federal law passed by congress the supreme court and "nullification" is the least of their worries. Before that occurs, if congress deems it important enough to take action, you will see Arizona loosing their federal highway money, then gradually they will loose more and more federal dollars until frankly the public in Arizona feels the pain and the local Arizona politicians through the public feel the pain. Thus it has always been, thus it will always be; as long as states recieve so much money from the Federal government the federal government will always have the last say in disagreements.

And just for your own information purposes, the tenth ammendment sounds broad, but it has been narrowly interpreted by the supreme court for more than 100 years. Longer than the modern history of our country. People think they understand what it says, but they really don't. Now to some I know that is very inflamitory, after all the constitution is written in English, they will say, and the sentence is simple and they've been speaking English all their lifes, right. Wrong, It doesn't say what they think. This is because there are many places in the Constitution which are broad and when it comes to giving these broad sentences precident, it really takes more than a one sentence understanding of the document. People actually go to school and study for many years to accomplish this. Truely. Before folks dismiss these facts as overeducated conspiracy to take rights away from the common man, folks need to take a remedial class in constitutional theory to at least understand some basics.

---------- Post added March-7th-2011 at 09:02 AM ----------

Whereas he is not respecting other states choices and is wasting money fighting their choices

So he IS allowing state nullification in deed and act...selectively....wheres Larry with equal under the law?

Yes how dare Obama have an opinion on how to run the federal government or the dept of justice which falls under the President.

[Destino]

So he IS allowing state nullification in deed and act...selectively....wheres Larry with equal under the law?

There is no nullification there. The DEA is still alive and well in California and the state hasn't moved to stop them from enforcing federal drug laws. If the DEA wanted to bust every drug producing farm in CA tomorrow they would be free to do so. I'd bet a sizable amount of money that the DEA has 110% cooperation from US marijuana growers and legal "medical" shops. The paper trail they produce is evidence and everyone knows it. They no doubt lean on them to bust shady characters seeking to sell in other states and at the same time able to focus their resources to combat cartels which represent a much larger threat to US interests.

Sanctuary cities are a joke. ICE raids anywhere they want to without checking with any state agency. Most cities are "sanctuary cities" in that their police forces don't check immigration status, they just don't call themselves that because their motivations differ. They simply don't want to deal with it. ICE doesn't care about any of that.

If CA passed a drug law that sought to BLOCK the DEA from enforcing federal drug laws that would be something entirely different. If LA tried to evict ICE and ordered their police officers to keep ICE agents out of the city that would be different as well. Arizona is seeking to nulify federal laws *AND* actively deny federal agencies the ability to enforce those laws within AZ.

[twa]

Is there an AND in there Des? ..or is it just state action being proposed blocked?

from the bill itself

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1433p.htm

this state and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order.