Proposed Legislation Would Allow Arizona To Ignore Federal Laws

Proposed Legislation Would Allow Arizona To Ignore Federal Laws

www.npr.org

If passed and signed into law, Senate Bill 1433 would give members of the state Legislature the power to override federal laws and executive orders...

It would allow a committee of 12 people — six from the House and six from the Senate — to recommend to the full Legislature which laws they think are unconstitutional.

Both new and existing federal laws would be up for debate.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Just stumbled across this and figured id post.Did a serch and i couldnt find anything on here about this.If this is really going down i guarantee more states will follow.what are your thoughts?I have to say its bout time individual states start standing up for what they and there citizens deem fair.

[url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/02/03/133470963/proposed-legislation-would-allow-arizona-to-ignore-federal-laws?ft=1&f=1001]www.npr.org[ /url]
(visit the link for the full news article)

great that will just speed up the plan of making the 9 state country. yaaaaaaaaaaa fema camps for every.

Originally posted by SpunGCake
great that will just speed up the plan of making the 9 state country. yaaaaaaaaaaa fema camps for every.

How exactly will state going against federal law speed up that process?FEMA is a federal organization correct?It would seem to me that FEMA would have no authority in AZ if this were to happen?

Dont Tread on Me!

This is the first attempt to outright retake the soveriegnty which the states were imbued with by the constitution.
There is reak history being made by this state and the people who live in it.
I hope this will not be struck down by the supreme court if called into law.

Originally posted by stirling
Dont Tread on Me!

This is the first attempt to outright retake the soveriegnty which the states were imbued with by the constitution.
There is reak history being made by this state and the people who live in it.
I hope this will not be struck down by the supreme court if called into law.

edit on 3-2-2011 by stirling because: (no reason given)

Agreed,it makes no sense to me for example the California medical marijuana laws,that the feds can step in even though the community actually feels the law is safe and just.

reply to post by GhOsT_Of_HuSh


Sounds good to me. If something is not indicated in the US Constitution as a power of the federal government, it should be ignored anyway. In my opinion. Federal marijuana laws, for instance. All that legislation was an end around run in the first place because it was not something the federal government was intended to be into.

Hmmmm, I maybe should go to history channel website to see if I can find the documentary on this.

If Arizona keeps going in the direction they have been, I wouldn't be surprised to see them secede from the union at some point. That would definitely raise some eyebrows.

Originally posted by kyred
reply to post by GhOsT_Of_HuSh

 

Sounds good to me. If something is not indicated in the US Constitution as a power of the federal government, it should be ignored anyway. In my opinion. Federal marijuana laws, for instance. All that legislation was an end around run in the first place because it was not something the federal government was intended to be into.

Hmmmm, I maybe should go to history channel website to see if I can find the documentary on this.

If you have time i would appreciate seeing that documentary.

Original Article

Propossed Legislation

Excellent find and a great story, surely more states will join....
gonna have to follow this closley.
Must also say that i am surprised at the amount of hostility the bill has gotten already (as you can see & vote in the KPHO articles page)

Whoa, Arizona lawmakers are on a roll. First the birther bill now this. It makes for good entertainment.

From the bill (p. 4)—

Further, no authority has ever been given to the legislative branch, the executive branch or the judicial branch of the federal government to preempt state legislation.

Really? How about Article VI of the United States Constitution?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And these are the people that are going to decide what’s constitutional or not? Right...

Originally posted by GhOsT_Of_HuSh

Originally posted by SpunGCake
great that will just speed up the plan of making the 9 state country. yaaaaaaaaaaa fema camps for every.

How exactly will state going against federal law speed up that process?FEMA is a federal organization correct?It would seem to me that FEMA would have no authority in AZ if this were to happen?

Good point if it were not for the fact that The majority of the "fusion centers" are privately organized, run and funded.....
Fema Camps?

Originally posted by SpunGCake
great that will just speed up the plan of making the 9 state country. yaaaaaaaaaaa fema camps for every.

After reading the title I knew someone would go off the deep end with some sort of ridiculousness.

So, when the federal government takes powers away from the states, it's a conspiracy! When the states take back their power, it's also a conspiracy! Damned if you do, and damned if you don't seems to fit well here.

I'm sure the government could say they are getting rid of every law in the country and letting us do whatever we want and some would still say "oh no.... just the next step towards the NWO"

I think this is a great idea, doubt it will pass thought. The federal governments power should be limited to very few things, regulating what we can or cannot put into our bodies is definitely not one of the things they should have power over.

Just a thought but it kinda got me wondering if a state were to secede would you need a passport to travel to that state?Would the government want the average citizens sheltered from what they would surely see as a radical rogue state?

reply to post by GhOsT_Of_HuSh


I think if a state were to secede a passport would be the least of the problems

Up until recently I know you didn't need a passport to go to Canada (Not sure if that is still the case, probably not) so it's not unheard of to go to another country without one, but I'm sure out of spite you would sure need one to get back "in" to the US once you traveled into some rogue state. Short of building a wall around the entire state I don't see how they could keep people out/in though.

I would wonder how they would secede though... do all of their trade through Mexico instead? Don't think that would work, and would probably destroy the new "nation" faster than anything else would.

They would be better off talking California into joining them, at least they would have access to the sea then! Could be the "new south" California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada. They would have it all, seaports, tourist attractions, a thriving drug trade, sounds fun.

Of course it is also unconstitutional to do so in an improper manner -

Interesting way to fight unconstitutional things don't you think?

Then there is the subjective aspect too, tyrants and retards swim in pools of open ended platitude -
but only retards suffer from hypocrisy. Foreclosures for everyone!!!

Aren't they, and 14 other states, plus Washington DC, already doing this by enacting MMJ laws?

Originally posted by Unit541
Aren't they, and 14 other states, plus Washington DC, already doing this by enacting MMJ laws?

The MMJ laws just make it so local law enforcement can't hassle the users, I'm sure this new type of legislation would attempt to stop federal police from doing the same. Not sure though. Not in the sense that this bill is about MMJ, but about getting the feds off their back, not just refusing to play along.

reply to post by aptness


Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

here's your answer.

the tenth gives each state the power to nullify any law, mandate, statute or power taken by the federal government that is not given it in the first nine amendments.

Originally posted by notsofast
here's your answer.

The only question I posed was a rhetorical one and was related to the understanding, or lack thereof, of the Constitution by the AZ lawmakers who wrote the bill, so I’m not sure what question is your post answering.

the tenth gives each state the power to nullify any law, mandate, statute or power taken by the federal government that is not given it in the first nine amendments.

No. The 10th Amendment, essentially, says the states have some powers the federal government does not, if those powers are not prohibited by the Constitution.

A state can’t ‘nullify’ federal legislation. They can challenge federal legislation, in court. In any case, whatever states individually decide to do, it must conform to the Constitution.

Out of curiosity, why do you say “[power] not given in the first nine amendments”? The nine amendments are part of the Bill of Rights, which don’t grant any power to the federal government, and are, in fact, limiting the power of the federal government.