Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
You Supremacy Clausers are funny.

You always HAPPEN to miss one small but very important detail . . .
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Did you catch it? The laws of the land must be made in pursuance of the Constitution.

[I]t is not on slight implication and vague conjecture that the Legislature is to be pronounced to have transcended its powers, and its acts to be considered as void. The opposition between the Constitution and the law should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility with each other.

It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity, and the patriotism of the legislative body by which any law is passed to presume in favor of its validity until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. This has always been the language of this Court when that subject has called for its decision

Furthermore . . . Arizona may pass this bill.

It will be up to the Feds to take it to the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by aptness

It will be up to the Feds to take it to the Supreme Court.

You recognize the bill, if adopted, has to be challenged in court by the federal government, but yet here you are arguing that Arizona’s legislature can ignore federal laws it, by itself, determines to be unconstitutional, without intervention of the judiciary.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And what happens when the Supreme Court Justices become corrupt or have other "interests" other than the law of the land or the Constitution?

Originally posted by Janky Red


. . .

Traitors always find ways to justify their treachery

The constitution states that the determination of constitutionality of LAW is in the hands of the supreme court...

Therefore, they are in violation of the supreme law of the land

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Janky Red

No . . . that was legislated by the Supreme Court in the Marbury v Madison case in the early 1800's.
It was up to the people and the states to decide what was Constitutional before that.

Section 8 grants the Federal government its power below - refers to the enumerated list prior to
this clause

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You are posing a phony argument...

Please show me where the tenth amendment states that a radical state legistlature can nullify any FEDERAL law they like based upon their opinion/s.

If members of Congress, the executive branch, and the Supreme Court all read the Constitution carefully, they will realize that government derives its powers from the “consent of the governed.” Essentially, the founders drafted the Constitution with an understanding that American citizens should have the ultimate say.

Well you appear to be advocating a revocation of the section 8, while placing all legal determinations into the
hands of politicians. Then after you proclaim the nullification of the document that creates the framework
for consent of the governed, you jump the tracks again and reference the constitution after you propose neutering
it. This post is working on triple speak my amigo

When you combine judicial review with a political agenda, power is taken from the most important branch of government . . . Congress. When this happens, the executive branch and the Supreme Court are essentially creating a new form of government, an oligarchy.

this is your opinion and is seperate from the legitimcy of the AZ political agenda of state level oligarchy or GOP "autocracy" at the state level

The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to interpret the constitution. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to enforce the constitution.

The purpose is to ensure that law does not violate the constitution, to
restrain governance

Wrong.

Ya you are

before you cite the tenth you should read the ninth

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Arizona Senate is using the Tenth in the very way that evokes the Ninth... Now the citizens of Arizona are subject to the whims of what partisans deem as constitutional...

edit on 6-3-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Arizona looks to change that back to its original form, and very well may do so using the 10th Amendment.

Originally posted by muse7
Well, I guess we should stop giving Arizona Federal money. They want to nullify federal laws and pass their own? Fine let them, In fact I wouldn't care if the United States kicked out AZ out of the Union. They then can create and live happily in the little police state that they so badly want.

edit on 3/5/2011 by muse7 because:

Originally posted by muse7
Well, I guess we should stop giving Arizona Federal money. They want to nullify federal laws and pass their own? Fine let them, In fact I wouldn't care if the United States kicked out AZ out of the Union. They then can create and live happily in the little police state that they so badly want.

edit on 3/5/2011 by muse7 because:

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

In other words, nullify any law that is unconstitutional or outside the scope of the Constitution. No state, person, politician, officer of the law, has to obey any law from the United States government that is unconstitutional or outside of the scope of the Constitution, period.