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

[The 12th Commandment]

There's been one article after another (at least here in our local papers on the border) how deportations are at the highest level in history. How there are 1,500 more BP agents along the border than there was 3 years ago and how evidence of crossing is at the lowest level ever. Damn lamestream readers ignoring facts that make their stupid, hateful proposals appear as stupid and hateful as they are.

[mardi gras skin]

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

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

_Thomas Jefferson

"The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

_delegates of Virginia at their ratification of the constitution. And Madison made it clear that by the people meant, "not individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."

I think its pretty clear that States entered into the Union understanding that they had the right to secede though Lincoln demonstrated that states may not have the power to secede.

But all this is irrelevant. Whatever bluster is going on, Arizona WILL NOT secede from the Union.

[Henry]

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?)

I do not think splitting the country in two and holding onto slavery is an adequate price to pay in order to maintain the libertarian interpretation of what our Constitution should be. That interpretation is what allowed the country to fracture in the first place. It's what allowed slavery to exist for the better part of a century. Governments evolve over time. All of them do. To expect our government to remain static, especially when to do so posed such immense threats to freedom, security and the very existence of the nation is, in my opinion, extremely unrealistic.

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.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you can parse slavery out of the equation. You certainly can't by citing some tariff that the secessionists did not even feel significant enough to mention in their Declaration of Causes. If government is so limited that it can not function, as was the case in the 1850s and 1860s, then it is not governing best. If the government is so weak that it can not keep from splitting apart when one third of the nation is displeased with election results, then it is not governing best. If the government is so weak that it can not put in motion a means to contain, much less eradicate, an obviously flawed and morally dubious method of economic production like slavery without splitting apart (especially if you consider the primary role of government to be the preservation of Liberty), it is not governing best. If 'the government that governs best governs least' was a universal truth we would have kept the Articles of the Confederation in place. If it was a universal truth our limited federal government would have been capable of resolving the slavery issue without breaking apart.

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.

Of course the civil war could have been avoided. If the southern states had accepted the results of a perfectly legitimate presidential election none of it would have happened. Slavery would have been contained to the states where it already existed, and then it would have eventually died a natural death. As was Lincoln's stated goal during the election and the Senatorial election of 1858. Unfortunately that was unacceptable to the south.

Our Republic is no more an empire now than it was then, by the way. Remember the US spent the first 80 years of it's existence fighting wars of expansion against both Canada and Mexico, as well as countless Native American nations.

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.

I think you made some very reasonable arguments and it's clear you don't support the institution of slavery. However, I don't agree with your willingness to maintain the institution of slavery in order to keep a system of government that was obviously incapable of functioning by the middle of the 19th century.

[twa]

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

That is his job and he has asserted his right to do so.

and Arizona is asserting their power over the state agencies and citizens...The feds are not a dictatorship and there are separate powers of each.

[Madison Redskin]

That is his job and he has asserted his right to do so.

and Arizona is asserting their power over the state agencies and citizens...The feds are not a dictatorship and there are separate powers of each.

As has been noted by others, the Constitution expressly provides that federal laws are the supreme laws of the land. How do you reconcile the supremacy clause and nullification?

[twa]

As has been noted by others, the Constitution expressly provides that federal laws are the supreme laws of the land. How do you reconcile the supremacy clause and nullification?

Through the courts and preemption

As I have noted federal laws have both in the past,and in the present, not treated as so

As I have asked repeatedly....how is Arizona nullifying them?...is it simply like Cali ,by refusing to use state resources and fighting it in the courts or what?

As Madison stated ...the States ability to nullify is simply the ability to put their opinion as the law being nullified out officially as a state and attempt not to enforce it.....JUST as Cali has done,and as was done in the past with fugitive slave laws ect.

added

a shorter version is nullification by a state simply opposing a law and not enforcing it themselves?

What else can it be?

[Larry]

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.

Actually, from reading the South's stated reasons for secession, I would argue that they had some legitimate arguments. IMO, the south had some legitimate Constitutional beefs.

(In particular, the practice some states had been doing, of declaring that any slave who set foot in their state became freed, which was specifically stated otherwise in the US Constitution at the time.)

(I will hereby point out the irony that skinfan is attempting to claim that states have the authority to pass legislation exempting themselves from the Constitution, by pointing at a bunch of states who seceded from the union because the northern states were passing legislation that declared themselves exempt from the Constitution.)

This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with this completely delusional argument that therefore, the states have the power to pass state laws which override federal ones, Or with the attempt to change the discussion from the claim that states can overrule federal law to a claim that states have the right to secede.

---------- Post added March-7th-2011 at 12:12 PM ----------

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?

You mean, the one in which, after three days of trying to claim a constitutional power which not only doesn't exist, but which is specifically and clearly stated not to exist, you propose that a Constitutional Amendment should be passed, granting the power which you've been claiming for three days already exists?

:halo:

---------- Post added March-7th-2011 at 12:20 PM ----------

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.

Only problem is, you skipped the steps, clearly mandated in the law, of:

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.

The state immediately announces to all citizens of Arizona that they are now exempt from that federal law.

The legislature must pass whatever legislation is needed

for the state to prevent enforcement

of that federal law.

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.

Those parts are kind of important.

[Destino]

Through the courts and preemption

As I have noted federal laws have both in the past,and in the present, not treated as so

As I have asked repeatedly....how is Arizona nullifying them?...is it simply like Cali ,by refusing to use state resources and fighting it in the courts or what?

As Madison stated ...the States ability to nullify is simply the ability to put their opinion as the law being nullified out officially as a state and attempt not to enforce it.....JUST as Cali has done,and as was done in the past with fugitive slave laws ect.

added

a shorter version is nullification by a state simply opposing a law and not enforcing it themselves?

What else can it be?

The bill has been posted and it states exactly what they plan to do.

- Form a committee to review federal laws under their own personal interpretation of the constitution

- Nullify laws they deem are unconstitutional with a vote (simple majority).

- "The committee shall ensure that the legislature adopts and enacts all measures that may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal law or regulation nullified pursuant to this section."

- If the government doesn't like it they can challenge Arizona in court.

The problem is that states don't have the right to determine which laws are valid or "prevent the enforcement of any federal law". They can choose not to use their own resources to enforce a law but they can't prevent the feds from doing anything. In their intent they provide their own constitutional interpretation that grants them this authority that the rest of the union recognizes doesn't exist.

Making something not illegal at the state level doesn't nullify a federal law. That law remains and the feds are free to enforce it. California has done nothing to hinder the DEA or ICE. They simply have determined their own state laws.

---------- Post added March-7th-2011 at 05:27 PM ----------

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.

The state immediately announces to all citizens of Arizona that they are now exempt from that federal law.

The legislature must pass whatever legislation is needed

for the state to prevent enforcement

of that federal law.

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.

Those parts are kind of important.

Exactly. The bill makes no sense at all by Theibear's interpretation. What would be the point of preventing enforcement if the law is nullified by the supreme court? States don't have to do anything to stop a law that's already been struck down. What this bill does is reverses the normal course of behavior. AZ will not be challenging federal laws, they will allow the federal government to challenge their nullification in court. They will unilaterally determine what laws are unconstitutional but acknowledge the supreme courts jurisdiction (which grants the federal government an avenue through which to challenge Arizona.)

[twa]

The problem is that states don't have the right to determine which laws are valid or "prevent the enforcement of any federal law". They can choose not to use their own resources to enforce a law but they can't prevent the feds from doing anything. In their intent they provide their own constitutional interpretation that grants them this authority that the rest of the union recognizes doesn't exist.

Making something not illegal at the state level doesn't nullify a federal law. That law remains and the feds are free to enforce it. California has done nothing to hinder the DEA or ICE. They simply have determined their own state laws.

By your own example they do have that power...the power over their law and employees

It does not nullify it at the federal level which IS beyond their power

[Destino]

By your own example they do have that power...the power over their law and employees

It does not nullify it at the federal level which IS beyond their power

In simpler terms the following are not the same thing:

- I will not help you

- I will stop you

There is a major difference between Cali refusing medical marijuana at the state level and Arizona proclaiming that they plan to "prevent the enforcement of any federal law" which they unilaterally declare unconstitutional.

[DallasCowboyFan156]

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

_Thomas Jefferson

"The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

_delegates of Virginia at their ratification of the constitution. And Madison made it clear that by the people meant, "not individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."

I think its pretty clear that States entered into the Union understanding that they had the right to secede though Lincoln demonstrated that states may not have the power to secede.

Not necessarily. Both of the men you quoted were Democratic Republicans meaning they fell on the states rights side of the political spectrum. I think you'll find that there were just as many in the early Republic who believed in a more consolidated government. Perhaps not to the point we think it today but I think its unfair to give two quotes from two men of the same political party and call it the belief of every member of the early Republic. It would be the equivalent of me taking a quote from two different Republicans today on abortion and saying that represented the views of the entire Congress.

But all this is irrelevant. Whatever bluster is going on, Arizona WILL NOT secede from the Union.

This I agree with. Arizona will not succeed. This is mostly a political ploy but it still upsets me.

[twa]

In simpler terms the following are not the same thing:

- I will not help you

- I will stop you

There is a major difference between Cali refusing medical marijuana at the state level and Arizona proclaiming that they plan to "prevent the enforcement of any federal law" which they unilaterally declare unconstitutional.

What power does Arizona have to stop the feds,and how does it differ from the power Cali exercised?

Is it simply the word nullify you deem out of bounds?

example

http://www.theagitator.com/2010/10/19/theyve-stopped-pretending/

added

from the comments

Ok, now what we need are for some small government, Obama-hating conservatives to bash the Obama adminsitration for using the federal apparatus to trample states’ rights.

Ok, I don’t think that will happen, but it would be nice for the Right to show consistency once in awhile.

What do I win???

[Larry]

By your own example they do have that power...the power over their law and employees

It does not nullify it at the federal level which IS beyond their power

Only if you take the idiotic position that a state has the authority to order it's employees to commit multiple felonies.

But what's little things like conspiracy and obstruction of justice (and assault on a police officer? if they attempt to use force?), compared to loyalty to the "I failed High School civics" branch of the Republican Party?

[twa]

And Cali???

[JMS]

That is his job and he has asserted his right to do so.

and Arizona is asserting their power over the state agencies and citizens...The feds are not a dictatorship and there are separate powers of each.

Right, and according to the title Arizona is trying to "nullify" federal law.... So far from the feds not being a dictatorship, what we have hear is a state saying they aren't beholding to a federal law passed by congress for a power reserved for the federal government. A state which recieves a heck of a lot of money from that federal government too.

It's not really threatenning or anything, It's idiotic and not in a sophisticated way either, but in slap stick selzer bottle down the pants type of way.

[skinfan133]

You mean, the one in which, after three days of trying to claim a constitutional power which not only doesn't exist, but which is specifically and clearly stated not to exist, you propose that a Constitutional Amendment should be passed, granting the power which you've been claiming for three days already exists?

I guess you have spell out in plain language that you're playing devil's advocate for the sake of argument. I thought that by pointing out that I don't really think there is much of a case for a constitutional power for nullification people would be able to intuition that I actually believed that. I guess I was wrong, so here it is, again.

I'm pretty much playing devil's advocate, mostly because I think the claim that nullification is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution is even more laughable than an argument for nullification as a Constitutional right. The Constitution says absolutely nothing on the matter, and that is ****ing fact if there ever was one. Therefore, the interpretation that the 10th amendment reserves such a hypothetical right to the states because it is not expressly forbidden is what I'm building this off of. I've got to be bluntly honest. Back in the day I thought Calhoun was a goddam hero and a champion of the Constitution. And then I actually read his words and arguments, and I was appalled at the intellectual laziness he displayed and the plain Unconstitutional views he had, specifically on nullification.

- - - -

Also worth repeating since everyone seems to crop this out of my posts when they respond to me: I want a constitutional amendment that establishes a nominal nullifying procedure for the States. Something similar to the constitutional conventions the states can call for amending the constitution. But again, I guess its easier to pounce on strawmen than to actually critically think about something and weigh an argument on its merits, AMIRITE or am I right?

[twa]

Right, and according to the title Arizona is trying to "nullify" federal law.... So far from the feds not being a dictatorship, what we have hear is a state saying they aren't beholding to a federal law passed by congress for a power reserved for the federal government. A state which recieves a heck of a lot of money from that federal government too.

It's not really threatenning or anything, It's idiotic and not in a sophisticated way either, but in slap stick selzer bottle down the pants type of way.

No, what we have is a state asserting they will not honor any law the deem as unfounded by the constitution and the powers granted from it.

It is a Republic in case ya'll forget.

btw...I never said it wasn't idiotic ,I simply want more clarity on how they implement it(or hope to)

Arizona threatening?...the Indians could probably take them.

[skinfan133]

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.

*sigh*

I am so goddam tired of being pigeonholed like I'm completely incapable of deciding things on my own. I think that history is better that the North won the civil war. Guess what, one of my personal heroes Robert E. Lee thought so as well in his later years. Just because I'm arguing that the South had legitimacy to their Constitutional argument doesn't mean I think they should have won. Further, I don't think the Confederate Constitution was all that great, in fact I think it was worse than the U.S. Constitution. I just think Lincoln's Constitutional views were even worse. If you want to look at a real turning point in terms of travesty for the United States, it was the assassination of Lincoln, and ****ing hate Lincoln so please let that sink in that I think the assassination of Lincoln is one of the worst things to happen in the history of North America. Johnson is easily one of the four worst President's in U.S. history. The assassination of Lincoln literally set this country back 100 years in multiple facets of government, culture, and race relations.

moving on.

The 10th Amendment is pretty damn clear, and so is Article I sec. 8. Just because the SCOTUS says something is Constitutional or not does not make it so. They give good insights from time to time, but John Marshall was just plain wrong in Marbury v. Madison. I'm a radical, nothing I say is going to jive with you I'm in favor of revolutionary change in government, not party change so we're not even on the same wavelength. I understand the way things actually function i this country. I'm not deluding myself. I want all of that to be changed from the ground up.

And I'm not even going to get into the Federal government holding the states hostage with Unconstitutional money through an Unconstitutional process in order to force them to do Unconstitutional things.

[twa]

And I'm not even going to get into the Federal government holding the states hostage with Unconstitutional money through an Unconstitutional process in order to force them to do Unconstitutional things.

But it's legal if they say it is ....(Sigh)

[Predicto]

The 10th Amendment is pretty damn clear, and so is Article I sec. 8. Just because the SCOTUS says something is Constitutional or not does not make it so.

That argument no longer flies. You may want things to be different than they are, but that boat left the dock in 1803 and its not coming back.

And without being too snarky, I will add that very little of significance in the Constitution is completely clear. Any constitutional scholar worth his salt will tell you that the document was a brilliant compromise between many different viewpoints. Each of the Founders themselves had very different ideas about the meaning of individual clauses, and about how those clauses would intersect.

[PeterMP]

Just because the SCOTUS says something is Constitutional or not does not make it so.

Actually, the Constitution says it does.

The Supreme Court can't be wrong about the Constitution, unless the Constitution is wrong (Assuming, the Supreme Court justices then aren't subsequently impeached and found guilty, which has never happened).

[FinalBeast]

Can we just give Arizona back to Mexico?

[twa]

Actually, the Constitution says it does.

The Supreme Court can't be wrong about the Constitution, unless the Constitution is wrong (Assuming, the Supreme Court justices then aren't subsequently impeached and found guilty, which has never happened).

Well they can be wrong(and have been),but it is still constitutionally binding

[Madison Redskin]

Any constitutional scholar worth his salt will tell you that the document was a brilliant compromise between many different viewpoints. Each of the Founders themselves had very different ideas about the meaning of individual clauses, and about how those clauses would intersect.

^This. The Founding Fathers weren't some monolith. Yes, they were all wealthy and relatively well-educated white guys, but they had very different ideas as to how our federal government should operate.

[LApunkrocker72]

Wow....Arizona has become one crazy state. That's a big reason why I didn't go to spring training in Arizona this year.