View Full Version : Time to move to AZ?
It may soon be time to move to AZ. I wish more states would take on this approach....
-------
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/initiative-would-let-voters-overrule-federal-law/article_50d0e77c-d27c-5828-a3b6-d818c0042700.html
PHOENIX -- Voters could get the right to overrule federal laws and mandates under the terms of an initiative filed late Thursday.
The Arizona Constitution already says the federal Constitution "is the supreme law of the land." This measure, if approved in November, it would add language saying that federal document may not be violated by any government -- including the federal government.
More to the point, it would allow Arizonans "to reject any federal action that they determine violates the United States Constitution."
That could occur through a vote of the state House and Senate with consent of the governor.
But that also could occur through a popular vote on a ballot measure, effectively allowing voters to decide which federal laws they feel infringe on Arizona's rights as a sovereign state.
Organizer Jack Biltis said he turned in more than 320,000 signatures. The next step will be for the Secretary of State to determine, after screening the petitions, if there are at least 259,213 valid names on the forms to allow the measure to go on the ballot.
Biltis, who said he has spent more than $1.2 million on the campaign so far, said it is time for Arizona to step up and reclaim its constitutional rights.
The "flagship" example, he said, is the federal Affordable Care Act. He said there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which gives the federal government the power to enact a national health care plan.
Biltis acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court, faced with exactly that question, ruled to the contrary.
"I believe the Supreme Court completely got it wrong," he said. In fact, Biltis argued, the ability of the nation's high court to interpret -- and invalidate -- federal laws itself is not part of the U.S. Constitution but was claimed by the court in 1803.
"The only portion of government that has unlimited powers are the state governments and the people themselves," he said. Biltis said that, under his measure, Arizona could simply refuse to participate, though it would do so at risk of losing federal dollars.
But Biltis' objections to federal authority are not partisan. He is equally upset with the Patriot Act, passed during the administration of George W. Bush, which gives the federal government broad powers to detain people without trial.
And then there are other issues that might not seem so weighty but that Biltis finds to be constitutionally unacceptable, like the federal law, signed during the Bush administration, which phases out the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs to save energy. The most popular replacement to date has been compact fluorescent bulbs which have their own environmental issues if broken.
"Besides the insanity of it, if you have a federal government that can choose to ban a light bulb that has existed for 100 years, that served us pretty well, what can't they do?" he asked.
Nor is Biltis troubled by the idea of individual states interpreting federal law -- and nullifying those they believe are unconstitutional. He said that is precisely what happened in pre-Civil War days when some Northern states refused to honor the federal Fugitive Slave Act which required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.
Biltis acknowledged his measure would allow Arizona to ignore other federal mandates, such as integration of schools. But he said there are various safeguards for that, ranging from public sentiment and pressure to the ability of 34 other states to amend the U.S. Constitution to give the federal government the explicit power overrule what Arizonans might have done.
There actually will be two sovereignty measures on the ballot.
A separate proposal crafted by Rep. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, would have Arizona declare its "sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within its boundaries." Exempt would be tribal and military reservations.
Eagle5US
07-06-2012, 16:25
If the Republic is forced to suffer an additional term, I would not be surprised to see honest and true seceding (correct tense?) from the union for a number of States.
This is a bold, and IMHO warranted, move by Arizona. The state is under siege and the federal gov't has decided that it will not only allow it to be overrun, but that it will assist in it's takeover by an insurgent force of illegal aliens / drug traffickers.
One day, in the not too distant future, there will be stories of "There was a time, a time before Barack Obama, where the USA was still a world power. A time when the classes were not so "defined", a time when we had the power of choice in everything from what doctor we saw to what we learned in school. A time before the government was a part of everything we did from when we awoke, to when we went to bed. Indeed, a time when we earned as much money as we could and bought what we wanted vs everyone having the same wage, tax, and assistance programs. And what glorious times those were to be alive."
This sounds like that lost episode of Family Guy in which MacFarlane paid homage to the Crosby and Hope road pictures. IIRC, it was called "The Road to Harford." In this lost gem, Stewie and Brian go back to nineteenth century America in time to witness the self destruction of the Federalists during the Second Anglo-American War.
Legend has it that the suits at Fox shelved the episode after MacFarlane wouldn't budge on a story arc. Apparently, the same executives who did not draw the line on gags about bestiality were worried about the backlash from gags implying bestiality and miscegenation. "Does her name have to be 'Sally'? And if so, why can't her mom be named 'Martha'?"
This type of initiative further undermines the intellectual credibility of the American political right. We want America to use the best practices of the founders when it comes to governing the nation. Yet, at the drop of a hat, many are ready to ignore those same best practices.
My $0.02.
This type of initiative further undermines the intellectual credibility of the American political right. We want America to use the best practices of the founders when it comes to governing the nation. Yet, at the drop of a hat, many are ready to ignore those same best practices.
My $0.02.
Following the best practices is only good for as long as all the players are staying within the guidelines of the game. As is increasingly the case, when the Obama Administration doesn't like the game rules or the outcome they swipe board clean and make their own rules.
In the case of Arizona vs The Obama Administration it has been an ongoing battle for almost 4 years, so I would not consider their actions rash or at the drop of a hat. Arizona has attempted to work in good faith with the Administration and they in turn have given Arizona the one fingered salute and ordered agencies to ignore Arizona's requests.
As a comparison, what would you do if someone continually came to your home to vandalize it and threaten you, and the Local PD that you rely on to Serve and Protect ignored all your calls for help? What would you do? Keep calling (like the rules state) and pray things don't escalate beyond destruction of property and verbal threats?
Eagle5US
07-06-2012, 18:14
As usual, I have no idea what you just said.:rolleyes:
Something about Family Guy... I got that ...
No doubt you say some heavy stuff...I just wished you talked like the rest of the hairy knuckled Race so that I could understand it...
Paragrouper
07-06-2012, 18:36
Nor is Biltis troubled by the idea of individual states interpreting federal law -- and nullifying those they believe are unconstitutional. He said that is precisely what happened in pre-Civil War days when some Northern states refused to honor the federal Fugitive Slave Act which required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.
I can think of a couple of more modern examples; immigration and legalization of marijuana (for medicinal purposes of course) in many States come quickly to mind.
The Federal Government itself is rather selective on which Federal laws it respects by its actions, or lack thereof, to enforce them. Piss poor leadership.
As usual, I have no idea what you just said.:rolleyes:
Something about Family Guy... I got that ...
No doubt you say some heavy stuff...I just wished you talked like the rest of the hairy knuckled Race so that I could understand it...
My take was Sig was talking about the use of that wonderful road map the founders left us....that includes a series of checks and balances and processes for grievance.
As usual, I have no idea what you just said.:rolleyes:
Something about Family Guy... I got that ...
No doubt you say some heavy stuff...I just wished you talked like the rest of the hairy knuckled Race so that I could understand it...Eagle5US--
To clarify, I think supporting such an initiative would be politically self destructive. Generally, the conservative critique of the left is that it wants to keep changing the rules in the name of "social justice." We argue that America has gone off the tracks because these numerous rule changes have changed the game to something much different than what was originally intended. We argue that getting America back on track requires getting back to the rules as written.
MOO, Mr. Biltis's proposal undermines this critique in several ways. Most notably, it calls for a rule change as drastic as any alteration that the left currently wants. If we're going to say "Let's use a version of the rules as close as humanly possible to the one the founders used," we should not support initiatives that takes us in the opposite direction and empowers the opposition to call for even more rule changes.
IMO, the way for the right to bring balance back to American political life is to demonstrate that we can find ways to address many of today's problems within the rules, not by changing them time and again.
Surgicalcric
07-06-2012, 19:53
As usual, I have no idea what you just said.:rolleyes:
Something about Family Guy... I got that ...
No doubt you say some heavy stuff...I just wished you talked like the rest of the hairy knuckled Race so that I could understand it...
Amen.
GratefulCitizen
07-06-2012, 21:24
If it's a bad idea, then Arizona will bear the consequences.
If it's a good idea, then Arizona will reap the benefits.
If other states bear bad consequences for Arizona's actions, too bad.
Arizona has been bearing the consequences of a federal government elected by other states.
Boo frickin' hoo.
I'm stayin'.
IMO, the way for the right to bring balance back to American political life is to demonstrate that we can find ways to address many of today's problems within the rules, not by changing them time and again.
Like Iran......an example of one side playing the rules to ones detriment and the other side ignoring the rules for their gain. In Iran case they continue their work on nuclear weapons while the US Bureaucrats are tied up playing with Robert's Rules of Order.
Like Arizona, I am sure the founding fathers tried to play by the rules with King George prior to pulling out the powder horns and muskets that brought real change.
Entire post.Clearly, you and Mr. Biltis are reading from the same page.
Peregrino
07-07-2012, 09:16
Sounds to me as though Mr. Biltis is simply trying to restore the 10th Ammendment (at least within the borders of AZ). Pity more States don't do the same. The Constitution organizes the Federal government, enumerates certain LIMITED powers, and reserves everything else to the PEOPLE (9th Ammendment), or the STATES (10th Ammendment). There's good reason the Anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights. Liberals (read Statists) have created the current problems by ignoring those limits, thereby nullifying large portions of the Constution. It's time to restore the balance; to AZ I say "Good Luck and God Speed!".
blue02hd
07-07-2012, 09:33
Eagl5US--
IMO, the way for the right to bring balance back to American political life is to demonstrate that we can find ways to address many of today's problems within the rules, not by changing them time and again.
As I read it, AZ is doing just that, addressing a major problem. When the rules are set by the ones in power and not by the Constitution, then aren't we obligated to dissent?
Clearly, you and Mr. Biltis are reading from the same page.
If my choices are Death by a thousand cuts or putting a stick in your eye for immediate results.....I'll take the stick.
Paragrouper
07-07-2012, 10:17
Given that our executive branch can only be described as woefully incompetent, our judicial branch is apparently off sniffing glue and our legislative branch is searching for some coherent direction--I think it is time to remind the government they are subject to the limits set forth in the Constitution.
IMO, we as a country are rapidly reaching a tipping point that many fail to acknowledge - many of our rights and privileges are under near constant assault and many of those rights are eroding as we speak - and this ship has been sailing in the wrong direction for quite some time.
DHS and others, draft documents that suggest that my very observations and opinions expressed herein - might actually place me on some "list."
I have no criminal record and yet, drones might be watching me depart for my jog in the midday heat and who knows what devices might be attached to my truck. Anything that I do, (or don't do) might reasonably be taxed and if I dissent I run the risk of who knows what. A court rules and a phone call is made to suggest that authorities ignore that decision...executive orders rule the day.
I do not believe that I have resorted to hyperbole - in fact I have been purposefully kind in describing the current situation.
I am, however, confident that we will survive as a country despite the idiots currently in office - certainly not because of them. But, unfortunately, like making sausage, or legislation, or now, writing Supreme Court opinions; it might get messy and some might be better off not watching.
Anybody sitting on the fence for the perfect candidate or planning to vote third party or write-in had better wake up quick. We have but one shot in November to vote out these incompetents.
These are indeed interesting times.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution
greenberetTFS
07-07-2012, 15:39
Eagl5US--
To clarify, I think supporting such an initiative would be politically self destructive. Generally, the conservative critique of the left is that it wants to keep changing the rules in the name of "social justice." We argue that America has gone off the tracks because these numerous rule changes have changed the game to something much different than what was originally intended. We argue that getting America back on track requires getting back to the rules as written.
MOO, Mr. Biltis's proposal undermines this critique in several ways. Most notably, it calls for a rule change as drastic as any alteration that the left currently wants. If we're going to say "Let's use a version of the rules as close as humanly possible to the one the founders used," we should not support initiatives that takes us in the opposite direction and empowers the opposition to call for even more rule changes.
IMO, the way for the right to bring balance back to American political life is to demonstrate that we can find ways to address many of today's problems within the rules, not by changing them time and again.
Sigaba
Eagle5US must have gotten to you,you just spelled his name wrong being in a hurry to responded...........;) :D
Big Teddy :munchin
ZonieDiver
07-07-2012, 22:35
Arizona's full! PSM was the last 'refugee' we could take.
Go to Idaho! :)
Arizona's full! PSM was the last 'refugee' we could take.
What if we bring ammo and beer ???
:munchin
ZonieDiver
07-07-2012, 22:43
What if we bring ammo and beer ???
:munchin
Sdiver!
There'll always be room for those with ammo and beer - lots of ammo and beer! But, bring lawyers, too. 'Skeletor'' is gonna need 'em!
Sdiver!
There'll always be room for those with ammo and beer - lots of ammo and beer! But, bring lawyers, too. 'Skeletor'' is gonna need 'em!
Roger that !!!! :D :D :D
Loaded up on the first two and when the time comes to egress down there, I'll just grab me an ambulance and head on down. I'm sure I'll have a convoy of the latter "chasing" me there.
:lifter
When the rules are set by the ones in power and not by the Constitution
The ruling "Elite" do not care on IAota about you...
The purpose of this post is to assess Mr. Biltis's understanding of the U.S. Constitution and its history. In the article linked in the OP, Mr. Biltis argued that the Supreme Court did not have the power judicial review until it "claimed" that ability in its ruling in Marbury v. Madison (1803).
"I believe the Supreme Court completely got it wrong," he said. In fact, Biltis argued, the ability of the nation's high court to interpret -- and invalidate -- federal laws itself is not part of the U.S. Constitution but was claimed by the court in 1803.However, materials related to the debates over ratification of the constitution suggest otherwise. Both opponents and proponents of ratification shared the belief that the document did, in fact, grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
As an example, James Wilson, a leading Federalist, argued in December, 1787,*For it is possible that the legislature, when acting in that capacity, may transgress the bounds assigned to it, and an act may pass, in the usual mode, notwithstanding that transgression; but when it comes to be discussed before the judges -- when they consider its principles, and fit it to be incompatible with the superior power of the constitution, it is their duty to pronounce it void; and judges independent, and not obliged to look to every session, for a continuance of their salaries, will behave with intrepidity, and refuse to act the sanction of judicial authority.
While Wilson, whom President Washington would appoint to the Supreme Court in 1789,** took comfort in the constitution enabling the federal judiciary to review legislation, others took umbrage. "Brutus," an avowed Antifederalist, argued in March 1788:**The power of this court is in many cases superior to that of the legislature. I have shewed, in a former paper, that this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution, and that, not only according to the natural and ob[vious] meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it. In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature. For all the departments of this government will receive their powers, so far as they are expressed in the constitution, from the people immediately, who are the source of power. The legislature can only exercise such powers as are given them by the constitution, they cannot assume any of the rights annexed to the judicial, for this plain reason, that the same authority which vested the legislature with their powers, vested the judicial with theirs — both are derived from the same source, both therefore are equally valid, and the judicial hold their powers independently of the legislature, as the legislature do of the judicial. — The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature.
So, if, as Mr. Biltis insists, the constitution did not provide for judicial review, then why did one of its architects (Wilson) and one of its most vocal opponents (Brutus) agree that the constitution did provide for judicial review?
Maybe they were on the wrong page.
__________________________________________________ ____
* James Wilson Replies to Findley, 1 December 1787, as printed in Bernard Bailyn, ed., The Debate on the Constitution, Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification, 2 parts (New York: The Library of America, 1993), 1: 823. **A biographical sketch of Wilson is available in ibid., 1052-1053.
*** "Brutus," The Supreme Court: "No Power Above Them That Controul [sic] Their Decisions, Or Correct Their Errors," New York Journal, 20 March 1788, as printed in ibid., 2: 375. This essay is also available in html format here (http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm). The identify of Brutus remains uncertain. An argument that he was Robert Yates is available here (http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/histprof/founders/attended/yates.html).
Arizona's full! PSM was the last 'refugee' we could take.
Go to Idaho! :)
Idaho is full, nothing to see here, keep moving, nothing to see here...:p
Arizona's full! PSM was the last 'refugee' we could take.
Go to Idaho! :)
Whoa, I didn't realize I'd cut it that close. And to think I wanted to wait another year or so to try to squeeze more money out of the CA house. :eek:
Pat
Eagle5US
07-08-2012, 18:43
So, if, as Mr. Biltis insists, the constitution did not provide for judicial review, then why did one of its architects (Wilson) and one of its most vocal opponents (Brutus) agree that the constitution did provide for judicial review?
I absolutely agree that the provision of Judicial Review is both provided for and encouraged.
HOWEVER, the process does not (IMHO) provide for a re-writing of the information before the panel FOR review. The mandate as written and voted on was exactly that - a mandate under the Commerce Clause and it's Constitutionality as such was then challenged. It was not presented to Congress, the American people, or the Supreme Court as a TAX.
Be that as it may, it was ruled Constitutional AS A TAX, not as a mandate under the Commerce Clause.
Is not the purpose of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of what is brought before it, vs finding the loophole wherein it would fit within the Constitution?
This completely negates the argument where Kagan should have recused herself from the vote and process entirely due to her work in developing Obamacare to begin with...
Is not the purpose of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of what is brought before it, vs finding the loophole wherein it would fit within the Constitution?
Eagle5US--
Brutus--in papers that preceded the one I quoted above--raised the very concern you touch upon in your post. He warned that the SCOTUS would proactively use its power to interpret the constitution in such a fashion that it would expand the power of the federal government at the expense of the state governments. Yet, before one agrees wholeheartedly with Brutus and applauds his wisdom, one should recall that he also railed against standing armies and professional soldiers <<LINK (http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus08.htm)>>. Why is it that he, and other advocates of "states rights," worried about the strength of the federal government? Were they only motivated by notions of the public good and the corrupting influence of political power? Or were they also attempting to protect their own interests?
Badger52
07-09-2012, 06:40
Sdiver!
There'll always be room for those with ammo and beer - lots of ammo and beer! The new Galt-esque monetary standard for emigration to Arizona! :D
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the RevolutionYup, found that relevant in another thread not long ago as well.
I didn't use pink font though.
GratefulCitizen
07-10-2012, 09:29
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Governments are losing the consent of the governed.
Modern information technology reveals more corruption, enables the people to avoid the schemes of corrupt office holders, and organizes them to counter those schemes.
As the effects of information technology become more apparent to those in power, they will become more draconian in their efforts to thwart the effects of that technology.
We are on the downslope of peak government, and office holders will become desperate.
An interesting take:
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/jerrybowyer/2012/07/10/july_4th_question_part_iii_americans_revolt_billio ns_of_times_a_day
The policies of the left and liberals, in general, almost always lead to economic ruin and destruction. Look at Greece, Spain, etc.,...California and most major cities managed over the long term, by Democrats.
The mind numbing bureaucracy that continues to grow and make "criminals" of most all of us - is real.
When most taxpayers truly believe that "fairness" has been compromised...that is the beginning of the end for a voluntary tax compliance system. That is Greece.
And, I am sorry to say, that may be our future if this train wreck is not reversed.
From the article cited above:
"And most people have absolutely no moral compunction about any of these violations of the either the spirit or the letter of the law, because deep down they no longer believe that the law, especially the tax code, represents any compelling moral principle, nor do its dictates seem any longer to be fair. They don’t think their home state has earned taxes on the Amazon purchases or that it deserves any share of the mutually beneficial exchange between you and your dry wall guy.
I bet you can think of a few dozen more examples, and increasingly we’re all in business and in personal life thinking of more and more ways to game a system which we have less and less faith in.
It’s not civil disobedience that I’m talking about. It’s the opposite: Civil disobedience is meant to be noticed. It is a price paid in the hope of creating social change. What I’m talking about is not based on hope; in fact, it has given up much hope on social change. It thinks the government is a colossal amoeba twitching mindlessly in response to tiny pinpricks of pain from an endless army of micro-brained interest groups. The point is not to teach the amoeba nor to guide it, but simply to stay away from the lethal stupidity of its pseudopods.
The amoeba does not get smarter but it does get hungrier and bigger. On the other hand, we get smarter. More and more of our life takes place outside of the amoeba’s reach: in the privacy of our own homes, or in capital accounts in other nations, or in the fastest growing amoeba avoidance zone ever created, cyberspace. We revolt decision by decision, transaction by transaction, because we believe deep down that most of what government tells us to do is at bottom illegitimate."
spherojon
07-16-2012, 15:51
Got to love AZ.
If the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty goes through, AZ will be my new home.
http://kelly.house.gov/sites/kelly.house.gov/files/ATT%20Letter.pdf