START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
1,331,681 people care about Politics

Arizona Proposes Secession Bill

Arizona Proposes Secession Bill

Arizona legislatures continue to show that they have no real interest in being part of a growingly diverse and complex national and global community.  First it was SB 1070.  Then it was the birther bill.  Now Russell Pearce, President of the Arizona State Senate and xenophobe behind SB 1070 is proposing legislation that would allow the state to nullify federal law.

Nullification measures are growing in popularity among hard-right legislatures and seen as a way to push the idea of secession without the messy business of actually having to secede, or without forcing the state to opt out entirely of generous federal funding.

The measure, SB 1433 creates a 12-member committee within the state 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.”

The committee would render their decision on, essentially, the constitutionality of a federal regulation and then pass their recommendation to the full Legislature who would then vote on the measure.

There’s a lot wrong with this measure, starting with the fundamental misunderstanding of the separation of powers.  It is not up to the legislature to determine what acts are or are not outside the scope of power.  That is the job of the judiciary.

It also fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the supremacy clause in the Constitution that quite clearly sets forth that when a state and federal law come into conflict federal law wins.  There’s no room for “interpretation” on these measures and indeed, the framers made it clear, after the failed experiment that was the Articles of Confederation, that in order for this nation to function as a nation rather than a mere collection of independent nation-states, federal law would be the supreme law of the land.

Pearce and his co-sponsers would do well to re-take their high school civics class.  It’s one thing to suggest the federal government is failing to do its job in enforcing immigration laws, for example.  But its another thing entirely to anoint yourself and your sympathizers as constitutional decision-makers and usurp the role of the state and federal judiciary.

Read more: , , , , ,

photo courtesy of Vectorportal via Flickr

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

776 comments

+ add your own
10:14AM PST on Feb 28, 2014

I'm afraid the connection crashed, so some of what I had to say, got lost. I shall not try to repeat it all, except to say that sometimes it might feel a little safer to have a weapon in the face of all of the mentally ill patients her in Canada who've been killed by our brave police force for wielding their scissors, knives, etc. Yeah, you can kill a person quicker with a gun!

Shame Rodney King didn't have one to defend himself all those years ago.

Regards and have a nice day.

Graham

10:06AM PST on Feb 28, 2014

Hi Jeff J., I'm sorry that I was rather rude to you. I haven't been online for some time, because some creep hacked my account, and I decided not to get involved with commenting on American affairs any more.

I came to Canada from the UK a little over 30 years ago, and found that North America is very different. Unlike here, in the UK even the police never used to carry guns. I suspect that might have changed a little now, but in general the vast majority of policemen/women still do not carry firearms.

When I lived there the police carried what they called truncheons, which were effectively very hard wooden clubs used to defend themselves if necessary, plus, I believe, a set of handcuffs. And I think it was the fact that they could not easily kill anyone with what they carried, that they used persuasion rather than brute force to deal with situations.

For this reason, the public had great respect for the police, and trusted them. They in turn would generally try to defuse any aggression if it arose and persuade people to do the right thing. I have to say that in all of my years in the UK, I never, ever was intimidated by a policeman or woman.

An example of the difference is that although I used to be a fast driver practically all of the time (I'm a little slower now ;), and occasionally was stopped for exceeding speed limits, I was only once in about 25 years actually ticketed for speeding. My only other ticketed vehicle infraction was to cause an obstruction

3:59PM PST on Feb 14, 2014

hi Graham H
again thank you for your post, but you really did not address the main points of mine. so you have a little background: I have studied sociology and criminal justice. I was involved with a drug enforcement task force in the pacific northwest where i gathered intel for said group. I have managed properties in some of the worst parts of california and have studied Wing chun kung fu, escrima, and collegate and freestyle wrestling ,so I am more qualified than most to comment on the subjects of my post. I have also been involved in one state assemply campaign, and twice supported a congressional candidate fof office, working as a volunteer, and have even written a very good healthcare bill ( which Obama, McCain, Ried,Kyl, and Pelosi totally ignored) which was never presented to the public. So I am not your typical person commenting in this forum. Anyway, as I said earier, you side stepped the main topic of my post and I would like to know why? My main idea was that the fedearl government was failing to live up to its primary responsibility of enforcing the bill of rights, and as such any state wishhing for succession is justified by the corruption of the federal government. look, like it or not, the second ammendment prohibits infringement of an individuals right to keep ( own) and bear( use) arms( note: it does not say some firearms, or some knives, it says "arms" and it was intentionally vague because the founders knew that there would be advancement in weapons te

3:59PM PST on Feb 14, 2014

hi Graham H
again thank you for your post, but you really did not address the main points of mine. so you have a little background: I have studied sociology and criminal justice. I was involved with a drug enforcement task force in the pacific northwest where i gathered intel for said group. I have managed properties in some of the worst parts of california and have studied Wing chun kung fu, escrima, and collegate and freestyle wrestling ,so I am more qualified than most to comment on the subjects of my post. I have also been involved in one state assemply campaign, and twice supported a congressional candidate fof office, working as a volunteer, and have even written a very good healthcare bill ( which Obama, McCain, Ried,Kyl, and Pelosi totally ignored) which was never presented to the public. So I am not your typical person commenting in this forum. Anyway, as I said earier, you side stepped the main topic of my post and I would like to know why? My main idea was that the fedearl government was failing to live up to its primary responsibility of enforcing the bill of rights, and as such any state wishhing for succession is justified by the corruption of the federal government. look, like it or not, the second ammendment prohibits infringement of an individuals right to keep ( own) and bear( use) arms( note: it does not say some firearms, or some knives, it says "arms" and it was intentionally vague because the founders knew that there would be advancement in weapons te

3:58PM PST on Feb 14, 2014

hi Graham H
again thank you for your post, but you really did not address the main points of mine. so you have a little background: I have studied sociology and criminal justice. I was involved with a drug enforcement task force in the pacific northwest where i gathered intel for said group. I have managed properties in some of the worst parts of california and have studied Wing chun kung fu, escrima, and collegate and freestyle wrestling ,so I am more qualified than most to comment on the subjects of my post. I have also been involved in one state assemply campaign, and twice supported a congressional candidate fof office, working as a volunteer, and have even written a very good healthcare bill ( which Obama, McCain, Ried,Kyl, and Pelosi totally ignored) which was never presented to the public. So I am not your typical person commenting in this forum. Anyway, as I said earier, you side stepped the main topic of my post and I would like to know why? My main idea was that the fedearl government was failing to live up to its primary responsibility of enforcing the bill of rights, and as such any state wishhing for succession is justified by the corruption of the federal government. look, like it or not, the second ammendment prohibits infringement of an individuals right to keep ( own) and bear( use) arms( note: it does not say some firearms, or some knives, it says "arms" and it was intentionally vague because the founders knew that there would be advancement in weapons te

11:01AM PST on Feb 14, 2014

Hello Gramn H
Thanks for your feed back because aside from a minor insult at the end, you appeared to want debate rather than the normal mindless rhetoric of most other leftists; but since you did make that minor ding, I must respond. First off, i stopped carrying a gun since I moved from Califorinia to Arizona, because it is infinately safer here. You implied that I lacked either skill or bravery in hand to hand combat, but nothing could be further from the truth, and in fact i carried a gun in Ca becuase I caused less harm by pulling my gun than I did deffending myself or others in the slums of the LA area. You see, on the five occasions that I actually pulled my gun out the assailant backed off and NO VIOLENCE OCCURED! you see, having the gun levele at their face( just our of arms reach) disrupted their focus and made them stop and think of the life and death consequenes they now faced; in essence fear defused the situation and all violence was avoided. Now, without my firearm, I have been in numerous situations where i was forced to hurt someone( something i do not enjoy) and I also recieved wounds that could easily be avoided by simply being armed and able to convey both resolve and restaint at the same time. this is one of many reasons guns are so important. Of course violence is always possible and anoyone carrying a gun must be fully prepared to fire on a human target if needs be, but it is much less likely ( based on personal experience) when a target of crime h

6:40PM PST on Jan 11, 2013

Jeff,
If there were no guns available to citizens of the USA, excluding the Police and Army, and similar organizations, no citizen other than in government service could shoot any other citizen other than with an illicit weaponn. Surely you don't think that to have more guns of one kind or another than you have citizens is acceptable in a so-called civilized nation? The idea is both idiotic and unsociable.

I'm a Canadian. We also have more guns than most countries outside of the Americas, a lot of them stolen or on the black market and carried by hoodlums, but although our population is around 10% of that of the USA, we have less than 1000 murders per year, of which probably no more than half, if that, are as the result of gunshots. If you've the nous to do the math's, you might realize that this would be no more than 30% of your murder rate!

Speaking about your rights to have guns is stupid! If you want to reduce shooting murders in the USA, remove all high powered and automatic weapons from the civilian population, and restrict people to one handgun and one rifle. You don't need a dozen guns in a household of two!

You appear to be one of these people who needs a gun to protect yourself, which suggests you might be more aggressive than you would be if you didn't carry a gun.

I suggest you grow up!

1:42AM PST on Jan 11, 2013

this is my second attempt to correct the ignorance of the majority of those posting on this site.first off the questions are simple: 1) what do the articles say about the bill of rights, the seperation of powers etc ? 2) what is the true legal role of the federal government concerning the bill of rightsas it relates to the rights of individuals and states rights? 3) is the federal government in compliance with these proviosions? 4) if not, then how do we bring it back into compliance? the answer to these question are whats relevant here, and most of you simple do not want to ask thesee questions because under this president you know the answers create a valid argument for secession. As an arizona resident do I want secession? Well not really, but the alternative is far less attractive. Regarding guns the facts are that the CDC says there are 33,000 deaths anually from guns, but it also says( under a flawed and very understated study published by the clinton administration that 1.5 million people prevent a crime by using a firearm ( un-biased studies show 2.5 million times) and they do not even fire the weapon 92% of the time. These statistics also show that 11% of the time police officers shoot a bystander, where as civilian guns owner only hit a bystander 4% of the time. Clearly crime suppression is not a valid argument for gun control, so what is the real reason for the lefts insistance on taking guns from the innocent civillian? Do any of you know, or are you simply believ

1:42AM PST on Jan 11, 2013

this is my second attempt to correct the ignorance of the majority of those posting on this site.first off the questions are simple: 1) what do the articles say about the bill of rights, the seperation of powers etc ? 2) what is the true legal role of the federal government concerning the bill of rightsas it relates to the rights of individuals and states rights? 3) is the federal government in compliance with these proviosions? 4) if not, then how do we bring it back into compliance? the answer to these question are whats relevant here, and most of you simple do not want to ask thesee questions because under this president you know the answers create a valid argument for secession. As an arizona resident do I want secession? Well not really, but the alternative is far less attractive. Regarding guns the facts are that the CDC says there are 33,000 deaths anually from guns, but it also says( under a flawed and very understated study published by the clinton administration that 1.5 million people prevent a crime by using a firearm ( un-biased studies show 2.5 million times) and they do not even fire the weapon 92% of the time. These statistics also show that 11% of the time police officers shoot a bystander, where as civilian guns owner only hit a bystander 4% of the time. Clearly crime suppression is not a valid argument for gun control, so what is the real reason for the lefts insistance on taking guns from the innocent civillian? Do any of you know, or are you simply believ

1:41AM PST on Jan 11, 2013

this is my second attempt to correct the ignorance of the majority of those posting on this site.first off the questions are simple: 1) what do the articles say about the bill of rights, the seperation of powers etc ? 2) what is the true legal role of the federal government concerning the bill of rightsas it relates to the rights of individuals and states rights? 3) is the federal government in compliance with these proviosions? 4) if not, then how do we bring it back into compliance? the answer to these question are whats relevant here, and most of you simple do not want to ask thesee questions because under this president you know the answers create a valid argument for secession. As an arizona resident do I want secession? Well not really, but the alternative is far less attractive. Regarding guns the facts are that the CDC says there are 33,000 deaths anually from guns, but it also says( under a flawed and very understated study published by the clinton administration that 1.5 million people prevent a crime by using a firearm ( un-biased studies show 2.5 million times) and they do not even fire the weapon 92% of the time. These statistics also show that 11% of the time police officers shoot a bystander, where as civilian guns owner only hit a bystander 4% of the time. Clearly crime suppression is not a valid argument for gun control, so what is the real reason for the lefts insistance on taking guns from the innocent civillian? Do any of you know, or are you simply believ

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

It's high time we acknowledged that we SHARE this planet. It is not ours for the taking.

cute! but those poor Danes can hardly keep up with speedy Spike :-)

The "theory" of panspermia has become less of a theory with this discovery. And why shoudn't Earth…

meet our writers

Lindsay Spangler Lindsay Spangler is a Web Editor and Producer for Care2 Causes. A recent UCLA graduate, she lives in... more
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.