Skip to comments.Arizona is sovereign land, House tells US and UN
Posted on 04/05/2013 10:39:25 AM PDT by SandRat
PHOENIX - If the federal government wants to lock up U.S. citizens without trial it should not count on Arizona to cooperate, the state House announced Thursday.
Lawmakers also voted to have the United Nations butt out of trying to affect Arizona laws and policies. And the House agreed to have the state take the first steps to recognize privately minted gold and silver coins as legal tender in anticipation of the collapse of the dollar.
Underlying all these actions is the argument that Arizona is a sovereign state, and the votes stake out a position to defend that sovereignty.
The first part of HB 2573 deals with two sections of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which give President Obama the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to detain certain people without trial. That includes not only those who planned or aided in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but anyone who "substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces."
It includes U.S. citizens and provides for military trials.
Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, said states work with the federal government all the time to implement federal law, which he said makes it necessary for the Legislature, which sets policy, to spell out when such cooperation will be withheld.
Seel acknowledged he has no evidence Arizona is in any way helping the federal government detain U.S. citizens. But he said the legislation remains necessary.
"Every public officer is required to uphold the Constitution not only of the United States or, in our case, the state of Arizona as well," he said. Seel said this legislation "best reflects preserving, where possible, the individual civil liberties."
While no one debated that section of the measure, there was significant opposition, largely from Democrats - to the other part, which says state and local governments cannot recognize the United Nations or any of its declarations as legal authority here.
"Fundamentally, what this language points to is to make sure the federal government does not infringe on the civil liberties of the individuals of this state," Seel said. That includes the resolutions of the United Nations, including the 1992 Rio Declaration on environment and development, as well as any future resolutions.
But House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said there's nothing to fear.
For example, he said one provision of the Rio Declaration says human beings are at the center of development. Another says countries have a sovereign right to exploit their own resources.
At one point Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix, suggested this part of the legislation, which already has been approved by the Senate, was part of the agenda of the "black helicopter caucus," a derogatory phrase used by those who poke fun at individuals who fear a national or international military force taking control.
But Seel cited another section of the Rio Declaration that says environmental protection must be an integral part of sustainable development. He said that means considering issues from a global versus local impact standpoint. Seel said he finds that "offensive."
Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, said she sees the measure as affirming U.S. and Arizona sovereignty.
"I can't imagine anyone in this room who would be a proponent of us ceding that authority to the United Nations for any reason," he said.
Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, said nothing in the legislation keeps Arizona from adopting environmental standards or anything that is similar to what the U.N. wants.
"It says that we are not subservient to the U.N., and the U.N. does not control the United States or any of its political subdivisions or states or their political subdivisions," he said.
The measure on coins is based on arguments that Arizona needs to be prepared to let businesses recognize gold and silver as legal tender should the need arise.
During legislative hearings, supporters of SB 1439 said the value of the dollar cannot be counted on. But they said precious metals have a value that has withstood all types of economic cycles.
The U.S. Constitution bars states from minting their own coins. But supporters say this does not preclude states from recognizing the value of coins that are produced by private mints.
Nothing in the measure requires businesses to accept the coins.
Both measures need Senate approval.
Your sovereignty won’t last long. Like the fat carpet-eater said “Arizona’s gonna be a blue state after we get all the illegals in!”
The UN is an enemy of America and the American people. We are a sovereign nation. The UN does not control us. It’s time for this old relic of the cold war to be given the boot. They have long outlived their usefulness. All they have left to do now is to cause mischief and America doesn’t need that.
Worse than that... The Feds will cut off their water from the Colorado river stored behind federally built dams.
Sovereign smohverign... you can kiss anything sovereign goodbye..
60’s radicals are in control of the federal givernment with a death grip and theres not much to release their cold dead hands from it.. short of an ARMY!!!.
The bastards want to OWN YOU much like the Chinese givernment OWNS its people.. or the Soviet OWNS those poor bastards.. or the NORKS farm their pitiful creatures like goats, sheep, chickens and ducks...
I just found out what a QUARK is.. it’s the sound a duck makes when you duct-tape its beak together..
Turn the U.N. into condos.
“I just found out what a QUARK is.. its the sound a duck makes when you duct-tape its beak together..”
Is that the AFLAC duck? He’s in the hospital you know, with a busted beak. See AD for reference, lol.
The AFLAC duck better recover before the death panels are fully staffed, or he’ll be a ...... dead duck....
Who owns the west
Perhaps the Democrats do not understand that their concern about UN influence has already been officially addressed. More specifically, Thomas Jefferson, undoubtedly based on his experience as VP and president of Senate, and also the Supreme Court, have clarified that the Senate and Oval Office cannot use their constitutional authority to negotiate treaties as a back door to force US citizens to comply with foreign laws based on powers which the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constitution.
"In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
"Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." --Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812.
2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution (emphasis added). --Reid v. Covert, 1956.
“Your sovereignty wont last long. Like the fat carpet-eater said Arizonas gonna be a blue state after we get all the illegals in!
Instead of projecting gloom and doom, why don’t you get off your fat, useless conservative ass and suggest a remedy or a plan.
What kind of ‘plan’ were you thinking of? Organize a military coup, arrest Napolitano, and start shooting people on the border? At this point, the only solution to this nation’s death spiral that wouldn’t be temporary and fleeting would be secession of conservative America, and I don’t think Obama would like that very much. We’d have escaped his clutches.
Sorry to be negative, but it is a fact that if the rats flip one more red state, the USA will become a one party autocracy. It doesn’t matter if its Arizona tomorrow or Texas the next day.
I would advocate for governors and legislatures willing to say ‘no’ to the federal government at every turn, because the people in Washington are intent on destroying the republic.
I’m sorry but you’re showing your ignorance of the strategic standing of conservative states. Right here:
“but it is a fact that if the rats flip one more red state, the USA will become a one party autocracy.”
That is complete bull.
Conservatives and patriots completely control 26 states. The rat commies control 11 states.
Get up to speed, Viennacon, and join us in kicking butt.
I’m asking you, Viennacon, to get on board and give us some good ideas to kick butt. We have plenty of surrender monkeys here on FR who have given up, and I don’t want to see you give up.
So, give some ideas on kicking liberal ass...
I dispute the notion that the UN ever had any usefulness, other than to communist tyrants.
So, give some ideas on kicking liberal ass...
You mean like pocketing your taxes and feeding the hogs?
Or tell me you BELIEVE the conservatives (remember those?) will ever win a FAIR/HONEST election.
It’s a process. Colorado was a red state. It is now a blue state. Democrats are waging demographic war, and their intention is to flip Arizona and Texas to blue through illegal immigration. The border is enforced by the federal government, who refuse to, under orders from Obama.
Now, there have been victories. I’ll agree with you there. What we got done in North Dakota and Kansas is exceptional. The Arkansas legislature is a big achievement as well, but I’m outlining the point that it is going to get progressively harder to win nationally as time goes on, unless something dramatic happens (scandal, massive immigration from somewhere conservative, collapse, etc).
I’m not ‘giving up’, but I do think we’re going to need small, state victories more than ever to succeed. Winning the senate would be good, and I actually think we could do it (things are aligning nicely), but Obama has made clear he doesn’t care what the other branches of the government do, he’s going to do whatever he wants. In light of this, it’s going to come down to states being more assertive, and Arizona hasn’t been. That state is being INVADED by criminals, and through Napolitano, the federal government has admitted this is for political purposes.
I apologize if I am kind of downbeat, but it annoys me when red states take this crap, and do nothing, even in light of unforgivable intrusions and derelictions of duty. In spite of our activist judiciary, North Dakotans essentially outlawed abortion. Why can’t Arizona, in spite of Napolitano and her thugs, put their own state enforcement along the border, with shoot-to-kill orders? It might sound like an unrealistic request, but is it, when you look at everything?
We may be kicking butt in some state level races and issues, but we’re getting our butts kicked nationally, and its not all because we’re nominating RINOS. It’s immigration, public education indoctrination, and welfare. If we’re going to defeat the left, we need to find smarter ways of doing it, and I do think tackling these issues at the state level is more important than a lot of people realize. That’s why this stuff in Arizona has me kind of pessimistic.
Yah sure what?
“You mean like pocketing your taxes and feeding the hogs?”
What are you talking about? Go stick your head in a bucket of ice-water and get back to us in the morning after you sober up.
“We may be kicking butt in some state level races and issues, but were getting our butts kicked nationally...”
The Founders didn’t win the country by trying to take over the British parliament. They took over counties and states.
I don’t understand conservative’s bizarre fascination with taking over the federal government when the federal government must rely on states for its power.
If conservatives control the states, the federal government has no power. Why is that so hard to understand?