It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proposed Legislation Would Allow Arizona To Ignore Federal Laws

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by notsofast
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.


Darn skippy.

And it is LONG LONG overdue that they take back their States Rights!
edit on 3-2-2011 by pianopraze because: added original quote




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Amendment X

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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The States can make good use of this in reining in the abuse of the commerce and general welfare clauses. Arizona is showing the way for states to begin clipping the ever speading wings of the federal government



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


the name of our country is not america. people have forgotten that. our country is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA... each state is suppose to be an independent entity, UNITED with the other states, to trade goods, services, information and resources. much like the united nations, for lack of a better phrase. remember the "join or die" snake? the one used in the "don't tread on me" posters? thirteen individual pieces make up the whole of the "snake". individual states making up the whole of the country. people have forgotten this as well, there are also other things in the constitution and bill of rights, that have slowly been forgotten and done away with. i suggest, more people read the constitution, then take a look around.



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.

exactly. the federal government essentially, as designed, has no power. the fed was designed, basically, to be a central "hub" for information, resources, and protection from a national invasion. over the years, the states have wanted to pass off legislation that may have been too difficult or, and quite frankly, would be unpopular.




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.


that is incorrect. currently, several states have nullified federal gun laws, as well as are in the midst of nullifying federal immigration laws. essentially, all arizona is doing is forming a committee to do so. the states can also push through legislation, as is currently being done with the so called "obamacare", to block federal legislation.




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.





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...


a rhetorical question that insinuated the law makers in arizona have no knowledge of the constitution and that you somehow know more. my post was therefore a rhetorical answer, which was, coincidentally not aimed directly, at you, but others as well, that says they DO in fact, know exactly what they are doing and what their powers are.

it irks me, when someone, in this day and age, is still under the impression that the federal government is akin to a god. (no offense)

as far as learning more about the 10th amendment, what it means to you, your state and what is going on "behind the scenes", so to speak...

nullify

sorry if it makes ya mad.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GhOsT_Of_HuSh
 


Star and flag for you. This is tantamount to secession by Arizona! I wondered which State it would be that would regain it's sovereign roots, and realize that Federal Law has no bearing on them. In 1861, the Confederacy claimed that the government had no legal authority to force the states to obey Federal laws, and when the Federal Government called up troops after South Carolina Rebels opened fire on a Federal fort, they decided to join their brethren slave states rather than follow the US Constitution.

Federal troops had repeatedly been used to quell uprisings within state borders starting in 1794 with the Whiskey Rebellion, and no one knew this better than Robert E Lee, since his father was placed in command of the militia from PA, NJ, MD, and VA that marched to western PA to put down the rebellion. The Confederacy, if nothing else, was a Rebellion. Federal Law was getting too strong when it could be used to draft troops.

When President Lincoln called for 75,000 3 month volunteers to suppress the rebellion, the states remaining in the Union were each levied a number of regiments to fight against the rebellious states. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas all decided to secede, rather than furnish troops to fight their fellow Southerners.

If the States do decide to secede, I think they should all go at once. A New Confederacy can be then formed, using the Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation, and Uniform Commercial Law will be the Law of the Land. Each person is a sovereign citizen, land ownership is allude able, and America's resources belong to all Americans. I went on a little hunt researching for this post, and found this:
The new Confederate States of America

Related:
The Sons of Liberty

THE CONFEDERACY PROJECT

American Patriot Network

Think Free, Be Free



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GhOsT_Of_HuSh
 


Bad idea from top to bottom. States cannot ignore Federal Law, and the legal theory of State Nullification violates the Constitution. There is a little thing called the Supremacy clause as well.

I would also wager the "authority" to review a law already passed is going to violate seperation o fpowers, since the review of laws is part of the Judicial.

I do like the idea of States having a say on federal spending in terms of defeciet, but only if done in such a manner that does not infringe on Congress authority to run the day to day dealings of the United States.

Nothing like having Congress hicjacked by some relative unknown.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


and the South lost that battle when they lost the Civil war. Federal Law is applicable to the States through the 14th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause in the Constituvtion (article 6) in addition to the wording of enumerated powers (article 1 - sec 8).


I would rather see the people take an active intrest in Politics and hold our elected officals accountible rather than take 300 years and flush it down the drain because people want to take an easy way out instead of rolling up their sleeves and fixing the problems.
edit on 3-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Reply to post by Xcathdra
 


An abused wife should stay in a relationship after she tries to leave the man and is beaten down because of it. Am I right?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Looks like someone needs to study the Constitution and the founding fathers a bit more




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


I am confident in my knowledge of how the US Constitution works are you?

When a husband beats his wife, as you described, we use existing law to protect both of them. She gets access to the law in terms of protection and recourse, and he gets protection in the form of innocent until proven guilty and access to legal councel, whether he can afford it or not.

We do not take the laws and throw them out the window beacuse he beat her. Throwing it all out the window means there is no longer any recourse for the wife, or the accused. Now we are worse off than we were before.

Would you care to point out in my previous posts where my understanding of the Constitution and law is in error?

If its a matter of you just not agreeing with me, thats fine just say so. If you truely think the States have the ability to do whats being proposed, please counter my argument with facts.

Our Constitution and laws have not failed.. We the People have failed by not caring what our elected officals do once they are in office.

Thanks.
edit on 3-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
States lost thier voice in making federal policy when the 17th Amendment was passed...

When creating the federal government, it was imperative that the colonies (later called states) and the people be represented fairly. The method decided upon was the people would vote for their voice – a representative to serve in the House of Representatives.

The States of the Union would each have an equal number of U.S. Senators (fixed at two), appointed by their state legislature to represent the interests of the State(s). Should that U.S. senator fail in their job to represent a State’s best interest, the legislature would recall them and appoint a new one. The decision to have the States appoint their U.S. Senators was very calculated.

However, the 17th amendment was passed and now the senate is also a sess pool of special interests and such since they have to run for election and curry favor from the constituents. This too was a calculated maneuver by progressives to take power from the States and place it in the hands of their financiers and special interest groups. Specifically, it was part of the Wisconsin Idea championed by Republican Senators Robert M. La Follette, Sr., a progressive, and George W. Norris, a reformer. They were the bright guys who came up with the idea that people should have a State income tax and other neat goodies that cost us a fortune nowdays.

Anyway, it is because of the 17th Amendment that the States lost their representation at the table of federal government discussion.

It was the intent of the founders to have a system under which the people would have the right to move about to whatever state they wished and make those choices based on the different laws and regulations therein - to vote with their feet so to speak if the state should be too oppressive or have excessive taxation or ideas or principles with which they did not agree.

However, the overreaching federal government has taken away many of those choices by using powers they do not have. The federal government has for some time used its power to force the States into laws and regulations without providing funding for the same.

That is why you see they erosion of their rights to do what they feel is right within their boundaries. There are so many Federal Laws that transcend the enumerated powers now that it matters very little anymore in which State one chooses to live.

One could easily argue in court today that the federal government oppresses the States and usurps their rights through demanding excessive taxation and then failing to use those taxes to protect the borders from invasion – one would only need provide the receipts for services rendered in enforcement of their immigration laws and prove the Attorney General at the instance of the Chief Executive refuses to enforce the immigration laws subjecting the State to undue financial burden.

Also, the US has set a precedent in recent decisions to side with many break away States in the world when they vie for their independence from a union. It would be foolish to set a double standard here and the world would not only take notice but likely support the State as everyone loves to hate the US nowdays. It would be in the interest of many nations to weaken the US would it not?

When the federal government refuses to abide by its own part of the covenant regarding illegal immigration and further attempts to sue the State for wanting to protect their interests rather than support them as it should they are the ones voiding the agreement and therefore the contract is no longer binding. What recourse do the people have?

To which court do they petition; the federal courts would have a conflict of interest - perhaps the UN or the World Court. I wonder how that would go after all the US hate out there....payback time would be an understatement.

I don’t know – I would rather not have to fight a Civil War it would cost me a lot since I draw an Army retirement; however, I would have to side with my State in principle as it is the Federal Government who is not holding up their end of the deal.

The States are just trying to reasert their soverignty and protect their interests which obviously are not the same as those of the federal governments.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by GhOsT_Of_HuSh
 


Bad idea from top to bottom. States cannot ignore Federal Law, and the legal theory of State Nullification violates the Constitution. There is a little thing called the Supremacy clause as well.


Wrong. If a law is unconstitutional, states may nullify it.

Case in point, the Kentuck and Virginia Resolves of 1798, co-written by Thomas Jefferson.

As to your supremacy clause. Nice cherry picking.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land…”

“In pursuance thereof” is pretty important. The clause makes clear that only laws that follow the Constitution enjoy co-status with the document as supreme.


I would also wager the "authority" to review a law already passed is going to violate seperation of powers, since the review of laws is part of the Judicial.


Negative. Go read Thomas Jefferson's writings on Marbury v Madison, and what the founder's intentions were.


I do like the idea of States having a say on federal spending in terms of defeciet, but only if done in such a manner that does not infringe on Congress authority to run the day to day dealings of the United States.


That is not Congress's job either. Day to day happenings are the place of the state.


Nothing like having Congress hicjacked by some relative unknown.


Nothing like having the Constitution hi-jacked by people who know nothing of it, or the intentions of it's creators.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I see metaphors go over your head.

Let me try a different way.

Considering the founding fathers seceded from Great Britain . . . why would they say that the states could not secede from an over bearing federal government?

Answer: They would not. That would be hypocrisy of the greatest order.

In his first inaugural address, Jefferson said "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by GhOsT_Of_HuSh
 


I thought Arizona already Ignores Federal Laws???



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Though you have a valid argument, what your forgetting is that the Constitution also grants powers to the individual states when the Federal Government fails to protect its countries borders, for what ever the reason may be. So in theory, if the states within fail to see any proposed actions from the Feds, the states are well within the rights and laws to take the reigns and deal with issues within that respective state.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Would you care to point out in my previous posts where my understanding of the Constitution and law is in error?



I dont think you have a full understanding of the 10th Amendment.


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.


Pretty clear and dry from what I'm seeing. The above posters argument holds merit.

The delegates signed the Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787, then concluding a dinner at the City tavern, left Philadelphia. The Constitution was the culmination of not only 4 and half months of deliberation, but of the decade of Constitutional experimentaion that began in 1776. The states had served as effective laboratories of liberty, and the lessons the framers drew as they reconstituted the national government came primarily fromm the experience of the states. George Washington stated,:



Forming a more perfect Union did not require writing a perfect document, instead, Americans had to consider the range of problems and interests the convention had to solve and accommodate.


Which further suggests that the states respectively, could in fact utilize the 10th Amendment in its true format.
edit on 4-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Respectfully you are wrong. The States do not have any legal authority to nullify a Federal Law. If a law is passed and is illegal or unconstitutional, then the courts deal with it per our checks and balances. The theory of State nullification of Federal LAw (as the Republicans have tried to use on health care) is not a sound theory, and is not supported in practice or law.

Nullification



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
This is true, from a Constitutional standpoint. The 10th Amendment reserves, (operative word0 the power, also (operative word) to the States, collectively or individually, to take back the power given freely to the Congress, and accept this power at a State level. Congress may not pass law that is un-Constitutional. Congress may not nullify the power of the State, or the People. Power in this sense rolls downhill, only the People are at the top, then comes the State, then the Federals at the bottom, not the top.

Let's look at this for a minute or two. People are upset, are they not?
From Alaska to Alabama, from Vermont to the West Coast, organizations have sprung up with people who say they are fed up with corrupt politicians and politics.
They all hold differing political views, from the far Left to the far Right. But one thing they agree on is that they say Washington D.C., the Federal Government has too much power and too much control. The candidates are bought and paid for, and they work in the interest of those who pay them. The Military Industrial Corporate Complex.

The Congress passed a law making it illegal for a State to secede. Which sounds kind of silly, if you think about it. They work for We The People, remember?
en.wikipedia.org...



United States President James Buchanan, Fourth Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union December 3, 1860: "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."

en.wikipedia.org...

They don't work for the interest of the People at all. Can anyone refute that? Imagine the individual states building their own economies, and if corporate America wanted a piece of the pie, they would have to reinvest in that state rather than outsourcing everything to countries that will work for a little of nothing that are breaking the American economy. The States belong to the residents who live in them, and the Federal Government belongs to us all collectively. TPTB works for us, We The People!

Can the States legally Secede from the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Damn right they can. The Constitution give us, We the People, the power to do what we want when it comes to government.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Why don't we just kick Arizona out of the Union...let Mexico take it over...and use it as an example for any other morons thinking it is a good idea to start some sort of revolution.


Would anyone really miss Arizona?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Respectfully you are wrong. The States do not have any legal authority to nullify a Federal Law. If a law is passed and is illegal or unconstitutional, then the courts deal with it per our checks and balances. The theory of State nullification of Federal LAw (as the Republicans have tried to use on health care) is not a sound theory, and is not supported in practice or law.

Nullification


Let me clarify.. The Arizona law being put forward is to nullify Health Care and not all FEderal Law. That argument I am fine with, and so far the courts are split 2 to 2 in favor of and against. Being able to cherry pick FEderal Law will not hold weight at all.

Arizona, in an attempt to ignore the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, is in fact violating their own State Constitution, which specifically recognizes the US Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, which inlcudes recognizing the Supremacy Clause.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


And you still show that you do not understand the Constitution, and still cling to the Supremacy clause, which in itself is a flawed understanding of the writings.




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join