AZ initiative would let voters overrule federal law...

MuchoUno · Jul 8, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
I agree that there are limits set on the Federal Government; I will also state that those enumerations are broad, and SCOTUS determines the Constitutionality of whatever Law is passed. Apparently the Healthcare law is Constitutional. This Arizona hooplah will end like the last one did, it will be basically struck down.--go on Arizona, waste more tax payer money, please.

Nonsense. The SCOTUS merely issues opinion. Constitutionality rests with the original intent of the authors of the law. And the monstrosity of Obamacare is most certainly not in line with that intent. It may be implemented by fiat, and because of the fact that we have a eunuch legislative body, but not because it is constitutional.

carolina guy · Jul 8, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
You left yourself wide-open, so, I'm going to punch: The Federal Government is making sure the States follow the Constitution.

I believe the Framers thought it was more important to ensure that the Federal government followed the Constitution than the individual states for the reason of consolidation of power. This is something that they were QUITE familiar with from England. A great many of them also felt that it was the responsibility of an educated (knowledgeable) electorate that has some skin in the game to KNOW when a law was unconstitutional and simply not obey it (since it, by extension has no force of law by the very nature of being unconstitutional) or forcibly RESIST the efforts to enforce the illegal law.

It was NEVER directly written into the Constitution that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of a law or state action. In fact, in Marbury v. Madison (1803) the SCOTUS relies on Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 and the fact that the Congress has NOT prohibited this kind of review, but rather ALLOWED it (Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13). This means that the Congress can take away the SCOTUS ability to review/determine the constitutionality of a law.

So...where does that leave our Constitutional Republic? If the Congress can remove the SCOTUS ability to determine the constitutionality of an action that the Congress takes, who is left? The Executive Branch (Prez), The States and The People.

Freedom First · Jul 8, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
I agree that there are limits set on the Federal Government; I will also state that those enumerations are broad, and SCOTUS determines the Constitutionality of whatever Law is passed. Apparently the Healthcare law is Constitutional. This Arizona hooplah will end like the last one did, it will be basically struck down.--go on Arizona, waste more tax payer money, please.

Actually the parties to the Constitution define what is or is not constitutional. That would be the States. The "federal" government (Agent of the States) was CREATED BY the Constitution. It did not exist prior to the ratification of the Constitution and it will cease to exist when the States or the People decide it should. And that document in no way surrenders the sovereign status of the States to the Agent of the States. They retain every Right and Power not enumerated as federal in the Constitution.

We have been raised from birth by a system that has ingrained us with specific untrue concepts. Like the supremacy of SCOTUS. Taking a States Rights case to them is like you suing me but you have to use my lawyer...

Nullification is where, based on the 9th and 10th Amendments, one of the States refuses to comply with demands by either other States or the Agent of the States. That is a clear and appropriate expression of the Sovereignty of a State.

Good info on Nullification.

Have a great Sunday!

MuchoUno · Jul 8, 2012

carolina guy said:
It was NEVER directly written into the Constitution that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of a law or state action. In fact, in Marbury v. Madison (1803) the SCOTUS relies on Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 and the fact that the Congress has NOT prohibited this kind of review, but rather ALLOWED it (Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13). This means that the Congress can take away the SCOTUS ability to review/determine the constitutionality of a law.

+1

nobama · Jul 8, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
I agree that there are limits set on the Federal Government; I will also state that those enumerations are broad, and SCOTUS determines the Constitutionality of whatever Law is passed. Apparently the Healthcare law is Constitutional. This Arizona hooplah will end like the last one did, it will be basically struck down.--go on Arizona, waste more tax payer money, please.

s I said before, libs dont like our constitution, look at what that ruth bater whatever said."we should look at Africa as an example of what we should model our new constitution" or something of that matter. Yes,they are their own opinions that are anti American. If anybody doesnt like our constitution,then leave.

hjmoosejaw · Jul 8, 2012

Pretty much the only thing I want the Federal Government for is national defense. Not a whole lot else. Some of us aren't like the liberals that have to have the government powder their bottoms for every little thing. We need a committee for this, we need a department for that. It's a bunch of B.S.! I don't need somebody controlling every aspect of my life. Libs seem to like it. How else would they know what to eat, or how much? I guess they need somebody to take from the providers and give it to the takers. I wasn't put here to just provide for a bunch of lazy a$$es. Take care of yourself and I'll take care of me and mine. If I want to help somebody along the way, then fine. I'll do that. But don't think the rest of us were put here to make you happy and provide for you. Who the Hell are you?

OC for ME · Jul 9, 2012

The states are sovereign and the feds do not like it when the states remember that they are sovereign. Loony-lib-sock-puppets do not like it when the states remember that they are sovereign either....

Maine Expat · Jul 9, 2012

DrakeZ07 said:
[*]I'm not disagreeing, or saying that 'we the people' shouldn't, or cannot thumb our noses at the Fed's, or State's when they infringe on our rights. But how exactly is the Federal government infringing upon Arizona's [Their state government, not their people as a whole] "rights"? From what I've read and saw in T.V. and news papers, Arizona has been a thorn in the entire nations' side since Brewer was put in office down there; Insulting the executive office, more so the title; then insulting and giving a finger to the actual person, by using unconfirmed opinions and wishful thinking to slander him concerning their actual place of birth. The state gov't making, passing, and failing; laws that put the Federal Government, Congress, executive, and SCOTUS on edge and make them face-palm hard. In my point of view, Arizona is a rogue-state, because much like certain political parts, and minority groups, They [Arizona state gov't] are perceiving a false fear, and using little crumbs and Congressional actions, to raise heck, and use fear mongering of their own people, so the state Gov't can make laws to make them their own nation, so they don't have to abide by federal law that reins them in.

I dunno, just my opinion. But for some reason, I have a feeling in my gut that tells me, although its good for states to strong powers, however, we have a federal government in place to make sure the states don't abuse their powers. If Arizona is allowed to veto, repeal, and move away from the national gov't, more-so than what they could do before, then it makes me wonder if they'll just fight off every single thing the feds pass, in our national assembly, housed with we the people's representatives, two from every state... or three, i forget the exact number of senators from every state.

Actually that's backwards Drake.

The Constitution gave few and limited powers to the Federal Govt. It was the STATES that were to keep the Fed in line with the FAR reaching broad powers that the Constitution gives the States. Everyone keeps forgetting that America is a REPUBLIC of United (but independent) States. It was NEVER intended that the Fed Govt would have such far reaching and today, invasive, intrusive powers.

All the States have always had the freedom to nullify unconstitutional laws passed by the Fed. Back in the 70s & 80s the States could have told the Fed to go pound sand over the national speed limit and set their own, but the Fed held them all hostage with all the federal funding the States had become addicted to. Just one of many examples, btw.

WHY? Because the founders never wanted America to be held captive under another tyrant after they threw off the shackles of the Crown. The Fed is out of control. We NEED more Arizonas to stand up and tell em where to go.

sudden valley gunner · Jul 9, 2012

DrakeZ07 said:
[*]I'm not disagreeing, or saying that 'we the people' shouldn't, or cannot thumb our noses at the Fed's, or State's when they infringe on our rights. But how exactly is the Federal government infringing upon Arizona's [Their state government, not their people as a whole] "rights"? From what I've read and saw in T.V. and news papers, Arizona has been a thorn in the entire nations' side since Brewer was put in office down there; Insulting the executive office, more so the title; then insulting and giving a finger to the actual person, by using unconfirmed opinions and wishful thinking to slander him concerning their actual place of birth. The state gov't making, passing, and failing; laws that put the Federal Government, Congress, executive, and SCOTUS on edge and make them face-palm hard. In my point of view, Arizona is a rogue-state, because much like certain political parts, and minority groups, They [Arizona state gov't] are perceiving a false fear, and using little crumbs and Congressional actions, to raise heck, and use fear mongering of their own people, so the state Gov't can make laws to make them their own nation, so they don't have to abide by federal law that reins them in.

I dunno, just my opinion. But for some reason, I have a feeling in my gut that tells me, although its good for states to strong powers, however, we have a federal government in place to make sure the states don't abuse their powers. If Arizona is allowed to veto, repeal, and move away from the national gov't, more-so than what they could do before, then it makes me wonder if they'll just fight off every single thing the feds pass, in our national assembly, housed with we the people's representatives, two from every state... or three, i forget the exact number of senators from every state.

[2]I made that statement based on the state level, I know of the history of the fed's and states' on the issue of slavery, and I make no stand against what you say. But, excepting one thing. If it's the federal government's fualt for restricting and enforcing bigotry and racial unease, on states, and therefore on the peoples themselves, then why is it that in this modern world, the Federal government is neutral, or leaning in some favorability to equal rights and protections for LGBT's under the law, yet a good portion of states's legislatures, and state courts, have fought hard to use state government to make religious laws, and other rulings, to further oppress another group of people? Sorry, but it's all on the state's for both issues. The federal government has been mostly neutral with the major issues of freedom of our people, it's almost always been the individual, or collection of, states who have fought to oppress, and keep low the down trodden.

Sure, the Federal government isn't a good entity, nor is it exactly a bad entity, it's only good when one political group who supports it, happens to beat down the opposition and keep them quiet on the mass media. For example, prior to the 1950's, my home state of KY was the one at fault for racial laws, even when early 1900's SCOTUS ruled against, or in favour, of our racial laws; http://www.ket.org/civilrights/timeline.htm

I don't have enough time to finish this, my BF is trying drag me to the shower... Can't a guy go the whole weekend without bathing and not be forced to bathe? D: This is bigotry I say! discrimination on men's rights to not bathe in their time off!

Don't get me wrong I think states should be limited too....all government needs to minimal as possible. You do seem to have the order of powers backwards though. The powers of the feds are specifically enumerated, but of course the "Federal" courts have changed the meanings of a few words so they can broaden their power.

There is a difference between reigning in state powers and using law to rule in favor for natural or fundamental rights of the people. Both State and Federal courts should strike down any law that infringes or discriminates against a "group" of people.

Yes your state was at fault but it was the fault of the federal government for not upholding individual rights of people not to be bigoted? If I had a business open to the public I would have to provide separate facilities and be forced by federal courts to discriminate whether I wanted too or not. And now in the guise of "civil rights" pools open to the public are being mandated to install expensive handi-lifts whether they can afford it or not and whether disabled can use it or not. Giving a central government the power to mandate I do anything with my person or private property is extremely wrong. When a state does it it is already hard to fight, when an all powerful federal government does it..........good luck...

I personally don't believe in LGBT rights, I don't believe in women rights, I don't believe in rights of the disabled, I don't believe in black or white rights. I believe in individual rights. This game of pitting the "down trodden" against the others as an excuse for more power and enabling certain groups to be "more protected" is silly. We need to treat everyone equally under the law.

Freedom First · Jul 9, 2012

Lots of +1s for this thread...

Man then God then Family then State then Feds... That's who has say in my life in descending order of importance from Immense Importance to annoying and meddlesome.

hjmoosejaw · Jul 9, 2012

If the Federal government did their job in the first place, Arizona wouldn't be in the situation they are in now! Here's a thought for any of you Libs that think Arizona should have to deal with this. Why don't you call your local police and tell them, whenever they arrest somebody, instead of taking them to jail, just drop them off at your house and force you to keep them?

Morbidph8 · Jul 9, 2012

God I love living in AZ.

We have done similar before. In 2010 we voted and it won, Proposition 106. Obamacare means nothing to us... Not sure how this will all work out though. Most likely the ATF and IRS will come guns blazing to force AZ to bow down... lol http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...ance_Reform_Amendment,_Proposition_106_(2010)

RCinLaveen · Jul 9, 2012

I signed the petition this past Friday.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

carolina guy · Jul 9, 2012

sounds like AZ needs to swear off all federal money that has strings, form a state chartered bank and "loan" themselves as much money as is needed. Who cares if it is every paid back...all money is fake anyway.

That is a virtual guarantee that the feds would come kicking in the doors.

fjpro2a · Jul 9, 2012

No, No, No!!

Beretta92FSLady said:
Then you have nothing to complain about. If the Second Amendment is all you need, is all that keep you 'Free,' then the rest of the Constitution can be disposed of. Right?

Now all you have to do it exercise your so-called Constitutional Right, and take your so-called Freedom, back.

The rest of the Constitution cannot and should not be disposed of. What in the world are you talking about?? The second amendment, IN MY OPINION, is what allows the remainder of the Constitution to exist, at least for a while longer than if the 2nd Amendment were not in the Constitution. Beretta, you have some great ideas. I mean that, and not in a condescending way. But, rather than try to "get over" on a technicality, real hard deep discussion is needed to solve our problems. Let's discuss (I don't mean you and me) the pros and cons of either doing something or not doing something. It is my opinion that we have a lot more in common than not. Thanks for your input.

sharkey · Jul 10, 2012

hjmoosejaw said:
There doesn't need to be a civil war. The right should start walking the walk. Walk right up to the border and start shooting anybody illegally invading our country!!!!!!

I fail to how that would solve the problem at hand. Extremism much?
If you're going to extremes, at least know your enemy. It's us. It's apathy and stupidity.

While I detest illegal immigration and personally see the effects of it; know it is just background noise. It's a distraction. Scapegoats are good for unification but you've got the wrong one.

hjmoosejaw · Jul 10, 2012

sharkey said:
I fail to how that would solve the problem at hand. Extremism much?
If you're going to extremes, at least know your enemy. It's us. It's apathy and stupidity.

While I detest illegal immigration and personally see the effects of it; know it is just background noise. It's a distraction. Scapegoats are good for unification but you've got the wrong one.

It would be a good place to start.

since9 · Jul 10, 2012

Morbidph8 said:
God I love living in AZ. We have done similar before. In 2010 we voted and it won, Proposition 106. Obamacare means nothing to us... Not sure how this will all work out though. Most likely the ATF and IRS will come guns blazing to force AZ to bow down... lol http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...ance_Reform_Amendment,_Proposition_106_(2010)

One of these days, I might move in that direction. If so, I'll stand with you.

Maine Expat said:
Actually this would be a form of nullification and its the prerogative of the States to do so in the event of unconstitutional laws being enacted. And its about DARNED time too!

Precisely. "Nullification" was the word I was trying to think of when I started this thread.

MuchoUno said:
Nonsense. The SCOTUS merely issues opinion. Constitutionality rests with the original intent of the authors of the law. And the monstrosity of Obamacare is most certainly not in line with that intent. It may be implemented by fiat, and because of the fact that we have a eunuch legislative body, but not because it is constitutional.

Bingo! The libtards are squealing, jumping up and down, and clapping their hands like the school teacher watching her students squash bugs in Starship Troopers. About as effectively, too.

Freedom First said:
Actually the parties to the Constitution define what is or is not constitutional. That would be the States. The "federal" government (Agent of the States) was CREATED BY the Constitution. It did not exist prior to the ratification of the Constitution and it will cease to exist when the States or the People decide it should. And that document in no way surrenders the sovereign status of the States to the Agent of the States. They retain every Right and Power not enumerated as federal in the Constitution.

The other thing obamalovers fail to grasp is that our government remains one of the people, by the people, and for the people. If our government gets out of line, it's replaced by the people. SCOTUS' decisions have become increasingly more partisan in recent years, to the point where their votes are almost exclusively along party lines. When this happens, their judgement is useless, and both the states and the people have other avenues of redress, including voting out Obama and the libtards in the Senate. As you mentioned, the States can just say "No." They'll receive tons of flack for it, but unless the feds want to send in the troops...

Nullification is where, based on the 9th and 10th Amendments, one of the States refuses to comply with demands by either other States or the Agent of the States. That is a clear and appropriate expression of the Sovereignty of a State.

Good info on Nullification.

Thanks for that link!

carolina guy said:
A great many of them also felt that it was the responsibility of an educated (knowledgeable) electorate that has some skin in the game to KNOW when a law was unconstitutional and simply not obey it (since it, by extension has no force of law by the very nature of being unconstitutional) or forcibly RESIST the efforts to enforce the illegal law.

This is precisely why a military officer's oath of office mentions only one's allegiance to the Constitution, and makes no reference to obeying any orders of superior officers. It's an officer's duty to ignore and even question unlawful orders.

It was NEVER directly written into the Constitution that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of a law or state action. In fact, in Marbury v. Madison (1803) the SCOTUS relies on Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 and the fact that the Congress has NOT prohibited this kind of review, but rather ALLOWED it (Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13). This means that the Congress can take away the SCOTUS ability to review/determine the constitutionality of a law.

So...where does that leave our Constitutional Republic? If the Congress can remove the SCOTUS ability to determine the constitutionality of an action that the Congress takes, who is left? The Executive Branch (Prez), The States and The People.

WE THE PEOPLE. We are the ultimate sovereigns of our own government.

carolina guy · Jul 10, 2012

since9 said:
WE THE PEOPLE. We are the ultimate sovereigns of our own government.

Ding Ding Ding!!

We have become accustomed to the government telling us what it can and cannot do...there is no need to look further than the Constitution. It CREATED the Federal government...but it did not create the States or The People. The People give it the real power since they are the only REAL beings...the States and Fed are just artificial constructs.

It is at ABSOLUTE best, a conflict of interest to have the Federal Government be the one that decides if a law that the Fed passes is Constitutional.

Nullification gets such a poor rap by those that have a myopic view of history...but simply...the states need to IGNORE the Federal mandates and laws that are outside the bounds set by the Constitution.

To make the nullification even more effective, the States need to redirect ALL income tax withholding levied inside their borders to themselves instead of the IRS. Then, and only then, forward on the portions that they DEEM to be Constitutional to the IRS at the end of the year...not weekly, monthly or quarterly.

This will kill the carrot and stick that DC has been using for years "...do this or we will withhold funding..." and force the Fed to actually BUDGET their spending instead of having a continuous flow of money to spend.

AZ initiative would let voters overrule federal law...

MuchoUno

Regular Member

carolina guy

Regular Member

Freedom First

Regular Member

MuchoUno

Regular Member

nobama

New member

hjmoosejaw

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

Maine Expat

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

Freedom First

Regular Member

hjmoosejaw

Regular Member

Morbidph8

Regular Member

RCinLaveen

New member

carolina guy

Regular Member

fjpro2a

Regular Member

sharkey

Regular Member

hjmoosejaw

Regular Member

since9

Campaign Veteran

carolina guy

Regular Member