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

[Destino]

Can we just give Arizona back to Mexico?

Only is we strip the citizens of AZ of that citizenship and send ICE after them when they attempt to come back. That way they could FINALLY learn some facts about american immigration. I imagine they'll be in for a big surprise.

[skinfan133]

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.

Obviously. I mean, what fool would say there was consensus behind the document? But you're also over complicating the matter. You're making the words they chose in compromise into something nebulous and cloudy, which they aren't. The notion that the Constitution requires magical wizards with Ph. D.s to interpret is such an elitist travesty. You really only need to be able to read. Seriosuly. That was the whole point of the Consitution, you know writing it down so that it would be clear what the boundaries where as opposed to British common law and their "constitution" which isn't written down. The saving grace of the Constitution is that the common man can read it, understand it, and need be enforce it. You're like the Catholic church, you represent Constitutional dogma. I am Martin Luther, prepare for the revolution.

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).

That literally makes not sense. And furthermore, it actually says nothing about judicial review in the Constitution. Marshall literally puled Marbury v. Madison out of his ass. That's why it is considered such a seminal case, cause you know, it established judicial review nearly a decade and a half after the Constitution was ratified.

^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.

Some of them were terrible men who believed terrible things. Again, you are all ****ing assuming **** about what other people think. stop it.

[PeterMP]

That literally makes not sense. And furthermore, it actually says nothing about judicial review in the Constitution. Marshall literally puled Marbury v. Madison out of his ass. That's why it is considered such a seminal case, cause you know, it established judicial review nearly a decade and a half after the Constitution was ratified

Judicial review was a well established idea before the Marshall decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

"The concept was also laid out by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:

“ If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[13]"

At a mere 15 years after its passage, the people that wrote it would have been around to scream if Marshall was co-opting a power not intended for the court.

But that didn't happen.

[Burgold]

Can we just give Arizona back to Mexico?

Arizona is presenting a great solution to the deficit problem. If they don't want to follow Federal laws then they should receive no federal funding. Let them come up with their own currency and have other states establish its worth. We can charge them large export taxes for any product they try to sell out of state too.

[JMS]

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.

Exactly a state saying they "deem as unfounded" a power expressly granted to the federal government in the constitution, supported by 200 years of precident, and in this case also supported by a recent supreme court finding.

AND you are right, Arizona is objecting and trying to nullify the federal mandate by claiming some sort of super patriotism excludes them from obeying or gives them some higher understanding of said constitution and our republic. And then they are squirting selzer down their pants.

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.

Not sure, Indiana has probable got more people, but Arizona probable has more guns.

---------- Post added March-8th-2011 at 07:46 AM ----------

Just because I'm arguing that the South had legitimacy to their Constitutional argument doesn't mean I think they should have won.

:doh: and you think I pigeon holed you? Dude you are playing tic tac toe for bird seed.

The South had no constitutional argument for sucession. If you've ever read the federalist papers which captured the founding fathers ideas for unification one of the central themes put forward by both Northerners (Hamilton, John Jay) and Southerners(James Madison) all agreed on was desolving the union would mean centuries of continous war as Europe had suffered through. Sucession would be a disaster which the founding fathers all oposed, and thus expressly and purposely did not allow for in the constitution. The south claiming they had the right is kind of like the tea party folks pointing to the 10th ammendment as concrete evidence the federal government has benifited from some conspiracy to usurp states rights. It falls outside of a reasonable view of reality and requires a level of credulity reserved for 2 year olds being spoken too by parents. It fails to acknowledge we have a supreme court to decide such issues, and fails to acknowledge the federal government is made up from people who are from the states. It just glosses over these facts along with history with a bunch of hand waving.

The 10th Amendment is pretty damn clear, and so is Article I sec. 8

Yes it is, absolutely clear if you are reading it in a vacume and not actually trying to understand how it equates with other absolute and contradictiong statements in the Constitution which the 10th ammendment must co-exist with. If you aren't interested in actually understanding the complexity of constitutional law... It's all very simple and clear.

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

Are we talking abstractly in your little micro cosm of patriotism? Because in the world I live in, the real world, that's exactly what the function of the Supreme Court of the United States role is. To determine if something is constitutional or not. They are the last word, the final word, The highest authority. Not the Arizona Legislature, or the Tea party, or any concerned citizens... Wait, I'm wrong, not even abstractly are you correct.

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.

I don't know about 100 years although the civil rights marches did conclude in the 1960's. I have heard that about Johnson.

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

Marbury v Madison? You mean the country has been on the wrong track since 1803 ? I think we just crossed into never never land. And yes, yes you are a radical. Which you should have stated in the beginning. I thought you were actually trying to base your argument in US History and the constitution. It now seems to me you are trying really to replace the US system of government with something you believe would be better. Which is perhaps intelectually more interesting, but entirely unplausible. You think that's a central theme of the tea party?

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.

Whoops, there you go again. It is constitutional. It's all constitutional. You just don't understand the constitution. You think the constitution was given down to us from a burning bush like the ten commandments, pronouncements from the founding fathers who all agreed on the message they were imparting to us.. In reality the Constitution is a very practical document with ample wiggle room to grow and contract as the generations necessitate. Not only did it mean differnent things to different people, everybody understood this when they signed it. The ink wasn't even dry on the document when the first constitutional crisis's started to occur. Such as Marbury vs Madison; Where sombody sued one of the founding fathers on the premise he stepped over his authority under the constitution!

---------- Post added March-8th-2011 at 07:52 AM ----------

Each of the Founders themselves had very different ideas about the meaning of individual clauses, and about how those clauses would intersect.

That is so true. I read a great book last year called "Plain Honest Men". The Making of the American Constitution by Michael Pritchard.

The constitution was delibritely constructed to mean different things to different people sitting across the table from each other and both parties understood that at the time. The book takes you through the crafting of the document blow by blow, the players, their motivations, and the challenges they faced. I read it as a pick me up every time I get frusterated at work.

My favorite part of the book was when the southern deligation was arguing for representation for slaves in congress. The northern deligates started messing with them... But aren't slaves property? The representative from Massachusets moved that New England chairs and furnature be granted representation in congress too. The southern representatives coming periously close to exclaiming slaves people and the north just poking them with it.

[Larry]

And Cali???

And fail?

But keep trying. I doubt anybody expects you to learn, the 12th time you try to manufacture a fictional equivalency.

---------- Post added March-8th-2011 at 09:05 AM ----------

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.

You've had your nose rubbed in the ****ing fact that you're full of it for three days now. The Constitution is absolutely, perfectly, clear on the question of whether a stete has the power to declare itself exempt from federal laws. They don't. It says so. Boldly, explicitly, and in absolutely plain English. And you're going to continue having your nose rubbed in reality until you quit claiming that it isn't there.

And people will believe that you're "playing devil's advocate", when you quit making completely fraudulent caims of "****ing fact".

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?

1) People will quit "pouncing on straw men" when you quit building them.

2) What you're proposing is "should we make it easier to amend the Constitution (by eliminating the requirement that an amendment go through Congress, first)?" And me, I think it's a terrible idea. Sorry, but I've seen way too many people make absolutely idiotic assertions about what the Constitution already says. I might be in favor of making the Amendment process tougher.

---------- Post added March-8th-2011 at 09:07 AM ----------

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.

He said, lying again.

What we have is a state claiming that it has the power to declare federal laws non-existent, and to pass whatever legislation is necessary to actively prevent enforcement if that law.

---------- Post added March-8th-2011 at 09:10 AM ----------

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.

I once saw a web page that listed all of the versions that the establishment clause went through, before being passed. It went through a lot of changes.

---------- Post added March-8th-2011 at 09:19 AM ----------

And furthermore, it actually says nothing about judicial review in the Constitution. Marshall literally puled Marbury v. Madison out of his ass. That's why it is considered such a seminal case, cause you know, it established judicial review nearly a decade and a half after the Constitution was ratified.

Actually, I'll agree with you here, that the Constitution nowhere says that the Judicial Branch has the authority to issue Judgments.

It also nowhere says that the Legislature has the authority to pass criminal laws. Like, say, to make murder illegal*. Or to punish people for breaking the laws. Nor does it say that judges conduct trials.

For some reason, the courts managed to find precedent for the legislature passing criminal laws, and for judges rendering judgments about those laws, without them being explicitly spelled out. I assume that they simply said that it was so obvious that that's what legislatures and judges to do, that it didn't need to be stated.

*Although I suppose that now days, the government could claim the authority to prohibit murder, under the theory that murder might impact interstate murder for hire.

[twa]

And fail?

But keep trying. I doubt anybody expects you to learn, the 12th time you try to manufacture a fictional equivalency.

He said, lying again.

What we have is a state claiming that it has the power to declare federal laws non-existent, and to pass whatever legislation is necessary to actively prevent enforcement if that law.

.

So Cali doing what is in it's power to nullify a federal law w/o actually using the term differs from Arizona saying a law has no effect and they will not enforce it HOW?

Do you keep using the word lie because you have no facts?...or are you just incapable of grasping reality?

perhaps you simply do not grasp the definition of nullify

nul·li·fy (nl-f)

tr.v. nul·li·fied, nul·li·fy·ing, nul·li·fies

1. To make null; invalidate.

2. To counteract the force or effectiveness of.

Perhaps f I made a vid with Spock explaining it it would help?

[Larry]

So Cali doing what is in it's power to nullify a federal law w/o actually using the term differs from Arizona saying a law has no effect and they will not enforce it HOW?

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were discussing the law that Arizona has proposed. The one that requires the legislature to pass laws preventing the enforcement of federal laws.

If you wanted to discuss a hypothetical, imaginary, law that doesn't do that, but simply chooses for the state not to assist the feds in enforcement, then I'll be happy to discuss your hypothetical.

Now, if the law they were proposing were to do that, instead of what it actually says, then my opinion would be that what they're doing is creating a complicated, expensive way of doing something that they can already do through simple legislation. (In fact, something which a local chief of police can do, without even any legislation.)

But if they really want to create a special committee to propose legislation to them, which any individual legislator could have dome without the committee in the first place, then well, Lord knows there's no rule that says government can't come up with an expensive, complicated, procedure for doing something, when there's already a simple, cheap way of doing it.

I apologize. I thought you were discussing the Arizona law.

[DCSaints_fan]

Its my understanding that all Marbury v. Madison said was that the legislature couldn't contradict itself. If they passed law B that contradicted a prior law A, without explicit language and legal mechanism that declares law A null and void, then one of the two laws, legally, has to be declared invalid. If the court wasn't allowed to do this, then it can't issue a meaningful judgement to enforce the law in cases that involve laws A and B.

[twa]

Unfortunately, we're not talking about Arizona saying they won't enforce it. We're talking about Arizona conspiring to prevent enforcement.

.

Passing extremely loose medical marijuana laws is not conspiring?

Filing suits to stop federal enforcement is not conspiring?

to my eyes there is much more evidence Cali is guilty of what you accuse Arizona of POTENTIALLY doing in your imagination.

So are you deluding yourself???

[Stadium-Armory]

California and Colorado are just smarter, but doing essentially the same thing.

AZ feels a need to puff out its chest due to some inferiority complex. If they were smart, they would make like California and Colorado and just do it - not pass a law that attempts to legitimize it.

[Madison Redskin]

Passing extremely loose medical marijuana laws is not conspiring?

Filing suits to stop federal enforcement is not conspiring?

to my eyes there is much more evidence Cali is guilty of what you accuse Arizona of POTENTIALLY doing in your imagination.

twa,

In the nicest possible way, I call BS. Passing lax state drug laws is not even in the same ballpark as nullifying federal drug laws. Doing so has no effect on the validity of the federal drug laws.

Also, I'm unaware of California filing suit to enjoin the federal government from enforcing federal drug laws in California. However, even if they are, at least they're using legal and constitutional means of doing so. That's a far cry from saying, "We unilaterally declare this law shall have no force or effect in our state."

[twa]

Passing drug laws to circumvent federal law is nullifying them to the extent possible by the state ...prop 19 is another example

Arizona passing a law nullifying a federal law has no more effect on the feds nor their laws than the example above...and probably less since Cali attempts to exploit medical exemptions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

In Congress, in order to counter the effect of this ruling, Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) annually introduce legislation to stop the Department of Justice from arresting and prosecuting medical marijuana patients.[11] This effort has not yet succeeded, as most members of Congress voted against the bill.[12]

How does this differ?

[Madison Redskin]

Passing drug laws to circumvent federal law is nullifying them to the extent possible by the state ...prop 19 is another example

Passing drug laws that provide that it is legal (under California law) to possess marijuana and state and local authorities may tax and regulate marijuana is not the same as saying federal laws have no force or effect. Proposition 19 did not propose to effect federal law whatsoever, only California law. You're a smart dude, so I'm not sure why you can't see (or won't admit) the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

In Congress, in order to counter the effect of this ruling, Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) annually introduce legislation to stop the Department of Justice from arresting and prosecuting medical marijuana patients.[11] This effort has not yet succeeded, as most members of Congress voted against the bill.[12]

How does this differ?

Perhaps because federal authorities tried to change federal law. There's an enormous difference between the federal government changing federal law and state governments trying to preclude the application of federal law in their states.

[twa]

Passing drug laws that provide that it is legal (under California law) to possess marijuana and state and local authorities may tax and regulate marijuana is not the same as saying federal laws have no force or effect. Proposition 19 did not propose to effect federal law whatsoever, only California law. You're a smart dude, so I'm not sure why you can't see (or won't admit) the difference.

Perhaps because federal authorities tried to change federal law. There's an enormous difference between the federal government changing federal law and state governments trying to preclude the application of federal law in their states.

In 2009, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder issued new guidelines allowing for non-enforcement of the federal ban in some situations:

“

It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal."[13][14][15]

How do you know that is not what Arizona intends?...that is certainly within the definition of legislating to nullify

another example...that clearly shows the county thinks Cali is going against federal law and using med as a excuse...and refuses to allow it.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051109/news_1m9pot.html

County to sue state over marijuana rules

ID-card requirement is called unlawful

County Supervisor Dianne Jacob called the decision "exactly the right prescription to cure Sacramento of its illegal mandate."

"In my eyes and in the eyes of the federal government, medical marijuana is against the law. The county will not roll over and allow the state to force us to break the law," Jabcob said.

[Predicto]

Passing drug laws that provide that it is legal (under California law) to possess marijuana and state and local authorities may tax and regulate marijuana is not the same as saying federal laws have no force or effect. Proposition 19 did not propose to effect federal law whatsoever, only California law. You're a smart dude, so I'm not sure why you can't see (or won't admit) the difference.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I know why.

[twa]

Lawyers :beatdeadhorse:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1356093

Abstract:

Using the conflict over medical marijuana as a timely case study, this Article explores the overlooked and underappreciated power of states to legalize conduct Congress bans. Though Congress has banned marijuana outright, and though that ban has survived constitutional scrutiny, state laws legalizing medical use of marijuana constitute the de facto governing law in thirteen states. This Article argues that these state laws and (most) related regulations have not been, and, more interestingly, cannot be preempted by Congress, given constraints imposed on Congress's preemption power by the anti-commandeering rule, properly understood. Just as importantly, these state laws matter, in a practical sense; by legalizing medical use of marijuana under state law, states have removed the most significant barriers inhibiting the practice, including not only state legal sanctions, but also the personal, moral, and social disapproval that once discouraged medicinal uses of the drug. As a result, medical use of marijuana has survived and indeed, thrived in the shadow of the federal ban. The war over medical marijuana may be largely over, as commentators suggest, but contrary to conventional wisdom, it is the states, and not the federal government, that have emerged the victors in this struggle. Although the Article focuses on medical marijuana, the framework developed herein could be applied to conflicts pitting permissive state laws against harsh federal bans across a wide range of issues, including certain abortion procedures, possession of various types of firearms, and many other activities.

[MrSilverMaC]

I was just curious to see what the reaction is to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41853846#41853846

Just curious to see the reaction to this. I mean, you have people in this thread advocating giving Arizona back to mexico. This is an example of a majority a 1,000,000 person population whom are being labeled as one thing while they are the exact opposite.

Not that I suspect this will stop people from labeling the entire state as redneck (which is really funny when you consider the fact that AZ is the 2nd fastest growing state due to east coasters like yourselves moving out here and helping to foster this environment. Guess you elitist VA d-bags need to stock up on your sunblock!)

[Madison Redskin]

I was just curious to see what the reaction is to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41853846#41853846

Just curious to see the reaction to this. I mean, you have people in this thread advocating giving Arizona back to mexico. This is an example of a majority a 1,000,000 person population whom are being labeled as one thing while they are the exact opposite.

Not that I suspect this will stop people from labeling the entire state as redneck (which is really funny when you consider the fact that AZ is the 2nd fastest growing state due to east coasters like yourselves moving out here and helping to foster this environment. Guess you elitist VA d-bags need to stock up on your sunblock!)

I know a few people from Arizona, including my father-in-law, and they're all nice, reasonable people. My brother clerked for a federal district court in Arizona and seemed to like it there. So, I personally don't have anything against Arizonans.

However, Governor Brewer is a bit nutty and she doesn't appear to possess the qualities you would expect to see in the #1 government official in any state. That probably explains why some Arizonans want to secede from the state. And, just so you don't think I'm picking on Gov. Brewer and Arizona, I think I should add that the Great Recession indirectly empowered loons and half-wits in a lot of other states (e.g., Bachmann and Minnesota).

[MrSilverMaC]

I know a few people from Arizona, including my father-in-law, and they're all nice, reasonable people. My brother clerked for a federal district court in Arizona and seemed to like it there. So, I personally don't have anything against Arizonans.

However, Governor Brewer is a bit nutty and she doesn't appear to possess the qualities you would expect to see in the #1 government official in any state. That probably explains why some Arizonans want to secede from the state. And, just so you don't think I'm picking on Gov. Brewer and Arizona, I think I should add that the Great Recession indirectly empowered loons and half-wits in a lot of other states (e.g., Bachmann and Minnesota).

Pick on brewer, she deserves it. Call out pearce for authoring this bill and 1070, he pretty obviously has issues. Hell, pick on the state because the level of stupid coming out of phoenix is intolerable.

But claiming AZ is nothing but rednecks and morons is small minded, and moronic in it's own right. Comments like "can't we just give AZ back to mexico" are made by half-wits or people impersonating half-wits.

[Burgold]

Pick on brewer, she deserves it. Call out pearce for authoring this bill and 1070, he pretty obviously has issues. Hell, pick on the state because the level of stupid coming out of phoenix is intolerable.

But claiming AZ is nothing but rednecks and morons is small minded, and moronic in it's own right. Comments like "can't we just give AZ back to mexico" are made by half-wits or people impersonating half-wits.

I can understand you taking it personally, but it's not. It's like when after a loss, a bad loss, a Redskins' fan says that the Redskins suck. Now, they don't usually mean Fletcher or Cooley or Moss or Williams or a number of others actually suck, but the generalization still fits. It's a mantle they all must wear despite how good some are and despite how hard some continue to fight in losing efforts. When you go 4-12 and 6-10 the team does suck even if some of the players are great. Heck, we had the worst defense in the world last year and got how many guys elected from that D to play in the probowl? We sucked despite having great players.

So, when we say Arizona is going nuts. We aren't condemning every individual in the state. It's just that a proportionately large ammount of nutterism seems to be coming out of there and from a distance you go "Whoa!" Your governor represents you. She stands for you and so does your State government. Take the good with the bad. Over the past couple of years, whenever we hear something about Arizona it seems it's because they are trying to do something radical and borderline anti-Constitutional. Sadly, the nutterism isn't just isolated to the government either. I hope that the good and sane people get to take their state back, but when looking from a distance... sheesh!

[MrSilverMaC]

I can understand you taking it personally, but it's not. It's like when after a loss, a bad loss, a Redskins' fan says that the Redskins suck. Now, they don't usually mean Fletcher or Cooley or Moss or Williams or a number of others actually suck, but the generalization still fits. It's a mantle they all must wear despite how good some are and despite how hard some continue to fight in losing efforts. When you go 4-12 and 6-10 the team does suck even if some of the players are great. Heck, we had the worst defense in the world last year and got how many guys elected from that D to play in the probowl? We sucked despite having great players.

So, when we say Arizona is going nuts. We aren't condemning every individual in the state. It's just that a proportionately large ammount of nutterism seems to be coming out of there and from a distance you go "Whoa!" Your governor represents you. She stands for you and so does your State government. Take the good with the bad. Over the past couple of years, whenever we hear something about Arizona it seems it's because they are trying to do something radical and borderline anti-Constitutional. Sadly, the nutterism isn't just isolated to the government either. I hope that the good and sane people get to take their state back, but when looking from a distance... sheesh!

Actually, it's more along the lines of if you were overhearing a group of french citizens calling Americans ignorant, ugly, lazy, and rude and proclaiming that they should have never sent troops to help us in our revolution against brittain. Sure if they knew you personally they probably wouldn't lump you in with that crowd, but it doesn't stop you from wanting to point out the fact that france has a world-class reputation for rudeness and a long history of being europe's ***** and that they might be talking about us in german if it weren't for our ignorant, ugly, lazy, rude asses.

Besides, you're not an elitist VA d-bag so it wasn't directed at you. :cool:

Like I said, the state deserves flack. Things are being done here in the name of the people of Arizona that deserve ridicule. The bill being mentioned in this thread is indefensible. The fact that this state is apparently now headquarters for the birther movement leaves me speechless and almost without hope that it can be salvaged. It boggles my mind that brewer got re-elected, until I realize that it was a phoenix thing. I can't fathom why anyone would want arpaio as a sheriff, but maricopa keeps on re-electing him too. And even with the jackassery that is in phoenix, voted in primarily due to the voters there, I realize there are people there that feel the same way I do. That not everyone in that hateful place voted for the people responsible for this relentless wave of ignorance.

To label everyone here as a racist redneck while the person doing the labeling is acting as if they and the people in their state are the pinnacle of enlightenment is complete hypocrisy. Especially if you paint with so broad a brush and come from the former capital of the confederate south, or are currently residing by choice in alabama.

My comments towards the posters in this thread are at least partially done with a bit of humor, but there are lots of boulders being tossed in very small glass houses in this thread.

[Larry]

I was just curious to see what the reaction is to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41853846#41853846

Just curious to see the reaction to this. I mean, you have people in this thread advocating giving Arizona back to mexico. This is an example of a majority a 1,000,000 person population whom are being labeled as one thing while they are the exact opposite.

Not that I suspect this will stop people from labeling the entire state as redneck (which is really funny when you consider the fact that AZ is the 2nd fastest growing state due to east coasters like yourselves moving out here and helping to foster this environment. Guess you elitist VA d-bags need to stock up on your sunblock!)

Just pointing out: No one has said that the state legislature of AZ represents every single person in the state.

But they do represent the state. (That's their job.)

Just like, when Gaza elects Hamas to be the majority party in their legislature, then yes, Hamas really does represent the Palestinians. (At least the ones in Gaza.) The people of Gaza have said "Hamas represents me".

"They don't represent us" really doesn't work, when "they" win elections.

[MrSilverMaC]

Just pointing out: No one has said that the state legislature of AZ represents every single person in the state.

"They don't represent us" really doesn't work, when "they" win elections.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read the thread and all of the comments. No one in this thread bashing AZ has made an distinction of any sort when they condemn the state and it's citizens. I haven't read one response saying "man the far right in AZ is over the top, I feel bad for the dems and moderates in the state" or anything similar making any distinction.

And yes, "they don't represent us" certainly does work when you state that a group of elected officials aren't representing your beliefs and ideology regardless of if you say it does or not. Or do you suddenly become a republican just because they were voted in as your state officials even if you are a dem and voted for their opposition?

Maricopa county, which is heavily republican, makes up about 3.5 million of the 7 million people in this state. Pima county, which makes up about 1.2 million, has always been the democratic stronghold of this state. So for the people of Pima county to say that the people in phoenix don't generally represent us is true. We elect the people we can, we cannot control the rest of the state and their political choices.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/az.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/az/prescounties/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Arizona,_2000

[Larry]

Perhaps you should go back and re-read the thread and all of the comments. No one in this thread bashing AZ has made an distinction of any sort when they condemn the state and it's citizens. I haven't read one response saying "man the far right in AZ is over the top, I feel bad for the dems and moderates in the state" or anything similar making any distinction.

When Party X wins the majority of the votes, in the majority of the districts, then they aren't "the far right". They're "the majority".

And yes, "they don't represent us" certainly does work when you state that a group of elected officials aren't representing your beliefs and ideology regardless of if you say it does or not.

Nope. They do represent us. They just don't represent me.

Now, you want to argue that the loonies don't represent every single person in the state, then the response is "duh".

You want to argue that they don't represent you, and you probably won't get a single argument. (Although, granted, this is Tailgate. Some people will argue with anything.)

But the evidence strongly says that yes, they do represent the state.

Or do you suddenly become a republican just because they were voted in as your state officials even if you are a dem and voted for their opposition?

Nope. But I would never dream of making the claim that the loonies in Tallahassee don't represent Florida. (Although I do think that, on the case of my state, the loonies in Tallahassee are a bit further to the right than the state as a whole. Being able to gerrymander the state to favor their party does give them a somewhat disproportional representation.

But even when you look at statewide elections, like Governor, Senator, or President: Yep, Florida is a (barely) Republican state.

----------

BTW, reaction to that MSNBC link: Did I hear correctly that AZ is supposedly considering getting rid of Medicare?

Isn't that going to cause a bit of an economic disruption, not only due to the loss of funding, but due to all of the Old Farts who've been moving there not only no longer moving there, but having to flee the state (and dump all their real estate), so they can move some place where they'll have health care?

What's the screwball loony excuse for that genius move?