|
I suspect this is something the Founders would agree with. I know in the Federalist Papers that the Founders said that if a state government didn't like a Federal law that one option was for the state government to simply not obey the Federal law.
And of course this would apply to stuff like the insane and unconstitutional "war on drugs" which is clearly unconstitutional per the 10th Amendment, despite the Supreme Courts ruling that the "war on drugs" is Constitutional per the "interstate commerce" clause. Arizona could deny resources for federal laws under bill By Alia Beard Rau The Republic | azcentral.com Tue May 14, 2013 9:59 PM Arizona voters in 2014 will decide whether the state can deny resources to federal laws or programs it deems unconstitutional. The Legislature on Tuesday gave final approval to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1016, its latest effort to flex state muscle against the federal government. The measure will go on the November 2014 ballot. It proposes to allow either the governor and state Legislature or voters to refuse to use state personnel and resources on any federal law or action deemed to be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. Sen. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, sponsored the bill. “We need to stand up and use our sovereign rights and this is another tool in the toolbox to be able to do that,” he said in a public hearing on the bill. Former state lawmaker and unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate Jonathan Paton and Phoenix businessman Jack Biltis are behind the resolution. This is a second attempt at passing such a measure by Biltis, who runs an employer-services firm. He spent more than $1 million of his money on an unsuccessful 2012 effort to put a similar measure on the ballot. The Checks and Balances in Government initiative lacked enough valid signatures to qualify, elections officials said. Biltis said in committee hearings on SCR 1016 that he would again invest his own money in campaigns for the measure. Paton told lawmakers during a committee hearing that he believed the measure is constitutional based on Supreme Court rulings. He said the court clearly ruled the federal government cannot “commandeer” a state to act in support of a federal law. [Again, I think comments by the Founders in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers support this.] “We can’t stop the federal government directly ... but we can say how we are going to use our resources within the environs of our own state,” he said. “We have the power as a state to decide what’s right for our state.” States, including Arizona, have pushed for measures in recent years to ignore certain federal laws, such as “Obamacare” or proposed gun restrictions. Paton said this is not “nullification” — a state refusing to enforce a federal law — but rather a broad solution that can be used whenever a situation arises. “I don’t envision this as a left or right issue,” he said. “I envision this as a checks and balances issue.” [Again, I think the statements by the Founders in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers agree with this.] House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said he envisions the bill as “a complete waste of time.” [Chad Campbell is a "complete waste of time"] “It’s talking about not wasting money on things we feel are unconstitutional at the state, but the referendum itself is unconstitutional,” he said. “You can’t supersede federal authority.” [True, but 99.9 percent of the laws passed by the US Congress are unconstitutional and this bill simply allows Arizona to ignore those unconstitutional laws] He said there are already checks and balances against the federal government overstepping its bounds — the courts. [Sadly the checks and balances and the courts don't work. The insane and unconstitutional "war on drugs" is clearly unconstitutional per the 10th Amendment, but the Supremes have allowed it to continue for 100 years.] And that, he said, is exactly where this would end up. He said if voters or the Legislature decide to deny services for a certain federal action, the federal government will likely sue and the courts will still be the deciding factor in the end. [True, but for the wrong reason. The Feds would certainly sue, but the royals rulers have grown too big for their britches and they have said that the "interstate commerce" clause in the Constitution gives them the power to do anything they damn well feel like, and sadly the Supreme Court has agreed with them!] “This is just another example of the figurative finger-pointing we’ve been doing at the federal government ... and in some cases, the literal finger-pointing,” he said. |