Time to move to AZ?

[koz]

It may soon be time to move to AZ. I wish more states would take on this approach....
-------
http://azdailysun.com/news/local/sta...8c0042700.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.

[Dolly]

AZ ROCKS

[Eagle5US]

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."

[Sigaba]

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.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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]

As usual, I have no idea what you just said.

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]

Originally Posted by koz

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.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Eagle5US

As usual, I have no idea what you just said.

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.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Eagle5US

As usual, I have no idea what you just said.

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]

Originally Posted by Eagle5US

As usual, I have no idea what you just said.

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]

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'.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Paslode

Entire post.

Clearly, you and Mr. Biltis are reading from the same page.

[Peregrino]

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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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?