Posted on 11/06/2014 3:26:34 PM PST by PapaNew
A majority of Arizona voters approved it, and now all Arizonans might have to pay for it.
Proposition 122 is setting Arizona up for a big court battle.
The so-called state sovereignty bill was narrowly passed in Tuesday's election, garnering 51 percent of the vote.
The proposition amends the Arizona Constitution's Declaration of Rights to confirm that the state and federal government are subject to the United States Constitution.
The new law states Arizona may restrict the actions of its employees and use of its financial resources to purposes it deems to be consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
ASU constitutional law professor Paul Bender said Proposition 122 is pointless and it encourages lawmakers to violate federal law.
"So, this is going to add to that (Arizona Constitution), 'Yeah, federal law is supreme,'" he explained. "But if the state Legislature thinks the federal law is unconstitutional, it can announce that it's unconstitutional and every employee of the state has to obey what the state Legislature says about the constitutionality - rather than what the federal courts say."
Bender said if the legislature acts on this new law, Arizona can expect to be slapped with costly federal lawsuits.
"Litigation is really expensive and time-consuming," he said. "And state employees have a lot more important things to do than fight losing battles against federal legislation."
Proposition 122 is a Republican-backed Senate resolution sponsored by the late Sen. Chester Crandell, Sen. Judy Burges, Sen. Al Melvin and Rep. Brenda Barton.
Arizona Gov.-elect Doug Ducey and Attorney General-elect Mark Brnovich both supported the bill.
"I support Prop 122 because Arizona needs to decide how it will best spend its own budget," Ducey wrote in support of Yes on 122.
"Many federal programs cost Arizona more than the state receives from the federal government. Prop 122 creates a way for the state to evaluate these programs and determine what makes sense for Arizona's taxpayers. It won't stop Washington from passing new laws, rules and regulations, but it can at least force them to pay their own bills," Ducey wrote.
But Bender said that doesn't make much sense.
"If the state doesn't want to cooperate with a federal program, it doesn't have to," he explained.
"For example, that was the big fight about the Medicaid expansion. Some people in the Legislature said, 'Don't take that federal money, because it will end up costing us money.' Other people said, 'Take it.'
"But the governor sided with the people who wanted to take it, and the Legislature decided to take it. But they always had the option not to take it," Bender said. "If you're worried that taking this federal money is going to cost you money, don't take it. You don't need this (Proposition 122) to tell you, you don't have to do that."
As for federal laws, Bender said, "States have to cooperate with federal law. They don't have to enforce federal law, but they have to obey it."
CBS 5 News tried to contact Prop 122's sponsors.
They either didn't respond or weren't available for comment.
As for federal laws, Bender said, "States have to cooperate with federal law. They don't have to enforce federal law, but they have to obey it."
Not if federal law is unconstitutional. States have to obey federal law only if the federal law is constitutional. Article VI (the Supremacy Clause) states the Constitution and laws "made in Pursuance thereof" are the supreme Law of the Land. If a federal law violates the Constitution, like Obamacare, it is NOT the Law of the Land and states have every right to nullify it.
But Arizona and other states considering this action must know clearly that they are contemplating financial independence from the federal government. If not, then it is all meaningless. However, financial independence from the bankrupt federal government is exactly what is needed SO LONG AS the state and the people of the state recognize the value of the clear alternative to the coercion and force of socialism which is voluntary cooperation of THE FREE MARKET ECONOMY.
An independent state that significantly cuts government and taxes and allows the market economy to freely run will soon find itself financially much healthier than the bankrupt federal government. The market economy free of government interference is the only true source of wealth for a society. It is freedom at work. If tiny little Hong Kong, perched on the tip of a rocky cliff with no natural resources, can become a thriving center of wealth and propriety, so can any state.
This is a battle between freedom and slavery. The amendments following the Civil War may have resolved slavery at the state level, but not at the federal government level. It seems apparent that the federal government will not voluntarily reduce its unconstitutional size or endeavors. Why should they? After all there’s no “government”. There are only people in government. Why should government officials or bureaucrats who have their own agenda and interests in maximizing their income want to be fired or reduce the size of their departments? As Reagan said, the closest thing to eternal life on this planet is a government program and the requisite bureaucracies.
The $4,000,000,000,000 federal government may never get cut by at least 80% (still too big at $800 billion, but it’s a start) or willingly go back into its constitutional cage where it belongs. Short of constitutional amendments (if enforced), state nullification and financial independence may be the only resolution.
Ping for those who are interested.
This is EXACTLY the kind of legislation we need. Let’s hope Ducey doesn’t try to pull a Brewer and ruin it somehow
law prof = unindicted child molestor
Gee, sounds kinda like federalism to me.
Actually that should be "inconsistent", Rebecca needs a proof reader.
Clearly it is unConstitutional to expect the government to subject itself to the Constitution. What were these people thinking when they passed this? How can government function if it can't violate the law when it needs to?
Well, SOMEONE needs a proofreader!
Me too.
No, that's actually correct; the bold portion is what is being restricted, the second underlined portion is what/how it is being restricted: to purposes it deems to be consistent with the U.S. Constitution
.
Can you guys hand me a towel to get the egg of my face?
The oppression will continue and grow into open despotism unless and until presidents, senators, and especially federal judges know that state legislatures can boot them from office.
So a law that affirms that government must abide by the constitution is unconstitutional?
What universe do I live in?
What is arguably unconstitutional about it is that it says that Arizona state officials get to decide which federal laws are constitutional. The federal courts will beg to differ.
So this idiot is saying that enforcing the Constitution is unconstitutional?
Yeah, it’s coming...
The new law states Arizona may restrict the actions of its employees and use of its financial resources to purposes it deems to be consistent with the U.S. Constitution
IOW, Arizon may restrict use of its people/money to actions consistent with the US Constitution.
Agreed, it could have been written more clearly.
requiring the federal govt to fall in line with the Constitution?!?
what’s this blasphemy??
quick comrade! off with their heads!
Sorry, did not mean to pile on. I started writing my post before the others posted, but I am a little slow at doing all the HTML formatting, so my post hit after theirs...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.