posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:49 PM
Most of one side’s arguments defending this bill are based on citations of what some founding fathers wrote, and claims that some clauses in the
Constitution are “flawed understandings” of those writings, but I must ask, are any of those writings legally binding on how the Union
Pretend all you want, call it whatever you like, but there’s a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution and the Courts have, on multiple occasions,
throughout the history of this country, rejected the arguments of those who rely on notions of ‘nullification,’ to claim that individual states
can strike down federal law.
Further, I would be more sympathetic to the arguments of those defending this bill if it would remit the question of constitutionality of a statute to
the state’s courts, but it doesn’t even do that, and instead tries to empower a 12-member committee, appointed by the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House, who would then decide what federal statutes are constitutional.
Lemon.Fresh mentions Marbury v. Madison but forgets to point out that its outcome established on the judicial branch the power to rule on the
constitutionality of a statute, with the Supreme Court, being the highest court in the nation, having the ultimate say.
If there is anything flawed here is the belief that a state legislature can rule on the constitutionality of federal laws, and ignore or override them
if it pleases.
If the state of Arizona disagrees with a federal law it can challenge it in court. If the state of Arizona wishes to be immune from federal law it can