U.S. Issues Arizona posturing for de facto seccession - Page 7

Taco John · 02-02-2011, 02:24 PM

File this under "nullification isn't as dead as some would like you to believe it is."

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/EJMontini/117684

E.J. Montini's Columns & Blog
E.J. Montini is a columnist for The Arizona Republic.

Arizona to secede (without OFFICIALLY doing so)

Members of the state Legislature, including Arizona's de facto governor, Senate President Russell Pearce, have introduced a bill that essentially would have Arizona secede from the union without having to do so officially.

Really.

It's called SB1433, (See it here.) It creates a 12-member committee within the legislature that could "vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government…"

Committee members themselves would decide this, then pass along their recommendation to the full Legislature. If, in turn, a majority of state lawmakers go along with the committee then, according to the bill, "this state and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order."

The nullification committee also would be permitted to review all existing federal laws to see if our legislative geniuses want to toss them out as well.

In every legislative session in every state throughout the land there are proposals like this, usually made by a few fringe members who know their proposal has no chance but file it anyway to serve some personal or political agenda.

In this instance, legislators here -- who claim to be strict constitutionalists -- seem fairly willing to ignore what is commonly called the "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution (as well as the Fourteenth Amendment), and which more or less say that federal law supersedes state law.

A state or a person can challenge such laws in court. But a state can't on its own simply declare a federal law to be unconsitutional.

Legislators who propose such things often are quietly patted on the heads and laughed off by their colleagues.

In our case, however, the legislation is being proposed by, among others, Sen. Pearce, the most powerful person in state government.

So, as wacky as the proposal is, that makes it much less of a laughing matter.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Jenson71 · 02-02-2011, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

that's none of your business but suffice it to say I would classify myself at the lower end of the upper middle-class.

Lower end of the upper middle class. I would estimate you make around $85,000 a year, then?

**petegz28** · 02-02-2011, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

I'd like to see what the SC has to say about that before supporting secession, thanks.

the SC??? HA! I lost faith in our courts long ago. They may rule correctly but I would be far from shocked if they don't.

The Mad Crapper · 02-02-2011, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonbat Boy

I take seriously the Church's doctrine and am unapologetic for it. I'm sorry the teachings are a joke to you, a self-proclaimed avowed Catholic.

I've said it on multiple occasions that I was agnostic for a period of my life, but you don't do much listening, you're too busy prattling your left wing bullshit.

**petegz28** · 02-02-2011, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Lower end of the upper middle class. I would estimate you make around $85,000 a year, then?

I'll never tell

BucEyedPea · 02-02-2011, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

the SC??? HA! I lost faith in our courts long ago. They may rule correctly but I would be far from shocked if they don't.

Actually, they can't even rule if a state is gone already. That state would not be beholden to them. If the Feds use force then that shows EXACTLY what our govt has become.

Jenson71 · 02-02-2011, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Please show me where the Constitution forbids any state from leaving?
Remember it only has "specific and enumerated" powers not broad general powers....those were left to the states.

Please, don't give me that it's a contract. The Articles of Confederation were a contract too and they were written in perpetuity and could only be amended unanimously. So if you use that, then that was a broken contract too. It actually was because the Con Convention turned out to be a runaway convention.

The Constitution does not have broad general powers, but it is not limited to the expressly stated powers. Marshall's opinion has controlled our understanding for over two centuries, and it has worked amazingly.

Remember, the Articles said that the federal government was "expressly" limited to those powers. It used the term. The new Constitution left out that term because of the Article's ineptness.

The Mad Crapper · 02-02-2011, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

I'll never tell

Don't share any personal information with that kid, he's a weasel and a scumbag.

BucEyedPea · 02-02-2011, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

I'm merely pointing out that this government was elected by "the people." I don't have a dog in whatever fight you have with Amno.

You missed by point about Amnorix. It was merely to point out there was a debate on this, rather extensive with links if you willing to open your mind to some more knowledge you may be unaware of. So you can use the search. You can see the excerpts from papers at that time.

This whole govt is not elected by the people though. The congress is. The president is elected by the Electoral College.
And even if it wasn't, a state has a natural right to leave and there's nothing in the Constitution that forbids it.
Remember we're a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.

Jenson71 · 02-02-2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mad Crapper

Like your parents who support you?

You're a disgraceful little twat.

My parents live over an hour away from me and do not pay any of my tuition. Their support comes in the form of a moral foundation provided to my from my birth along with securities and privileges they gave me for years.

Jenson71 · 02-02-2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mad Crapper

I've said it on multiple occasions that I was agnostic for a period of my life, but you don't do much listening, you're too busy prattling your left wing bullshit.

But "agnostic for a period of my life" I take it you mean now? Or why are you mocking the Church's teachings presently?

The Mad Crapper · 02-02-2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenson71

My parents live over an hour away from me and do not pay any of my tuition. Their support comes in the form of a moral foundation provided to my from my birth along with securities and privileges they gave me for years.

Yeah right.

Oh by the way shithead:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...3&postcount=18

Jenson71 · 02-02-2011, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

I'll never tell

Oh, I thought personal background information was how we judged arguments around here. At least that's how you've judged my posts for several years now.

Jenson71 · 02-02-2011, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mad Crapper

Yeah right.

Oh by the way shithead:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...3&postcount=18

Oh by the way:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mad Crapper

I'm leaving now, I'm going to a better place. You can find all the daily islam contributions to world peace here:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com

Somebody is going to have to fill my shoes, like Abernathy did when when Fox News assassinated King.

GOD SPEED!

What happened to your better place?

**petegz28** · 02-02-2011, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Oh, I thought personal background information was how we judged arguments around here. At least that's how you've judged my posts for several years now.

Negative. You are confusing years of experience with personal financial information.

The Mad Crapper · 02-02-2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenson71

But "agnostic for a period of my life" I take it you mean now? Or why are you mocking the Church's teachings presently?

No asshole, I'm mocking you personally. Just because you're a part of an organization doesn't make that organization a reflection of your stupid ass.

So leave your affiliations out of it.

And I don't care if a guy takes a celibacy vow, I think thats admirable. But on the other hand, I'm not gonna sit here and get lectured to about anything or life in general by somebody who hasn't had a whole lot of experiences other than sitting in a classroom like a drone like you.

02-02-2011, 02:24 PM
Taco John 12on Paul Join Date: Jun 2001 Casino cash: $10084512	Arizona posturing for de facto seccession File this under "nullification isn't as dead as some would like you to believe it is." http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/EJMontini/117684 E.J. Montini's Columns & Blog E.J. Montini is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. Arizona to secede (without OFFICIALLY doing so) Members of the state Legislature, including Arizona's de facto governor, Senate President Russell Pearce, have introduced a bill that essentially would have Arizona secede from the union without having to do so officially. Really. It's called SB1433, (See it here.) It creates a 12-member committee within the legislature that could "vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government…" Committee members themselves would decide this, then pass along their recommendation to the full Legislature. If, in turn, a majority of state lawmakers go along with the committee then, according to the bill, "this state and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order." The nullification committee also would be permitted to review all existing federal laws to see if our legislative geniuses want to toss them out as well. In every legislative session in every state throughout the land there are proposals like this, usually made by a few fringe members who know their proposal has no chance but file it anyway to serve some personal or political agenda. In this instance, legislators here -- who claim to be strict constitutionalists -- seem fairly willing to ignore what is commonly called the "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution (as well as the Fourteenth Amendment), and which more or less say that federal law supersedes state law. A state or a person can challenge such laws in court. But a state can't on its own simply declare a federal law to be unconsitutional. Legislators who propose such things often are quietly patted on the heads and laughed off by their colleagues. In our case, however, the legislation is being proposed by, among others, Sen. Pearce, the most powerful person in state government. So, as wacky as the proposal is, that makes it much less of a laughing matter. Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Posts: 49,358

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode