Voters could get the right to overrule federal laws and mandates under the terms of an initiative filed late Thursday.
The Arizona Constitution already says the federal Constitution "is the supreme law of the land.'' This measure, if approved in November, would add language saying that federal document may not be violated by any government -- including the federal government.
More to the point, it would allow Arizonans "to reject any federal action that they determine violates the United States Constitution." That could occur through a vote of the state House and Senate with consent of the governor.
But that also could occur through a popular vote on a ballot measure, effectively allowing voters to decide which federal laws they feel infringe on Arizona's rights as a sovereign state.
Organizer Jack Biltis said he turned in more than 320,000 signatures. The next step will be for the Secretary of State to determine, after screening the petitions, if there are at least 259,213 valid names on the forms to allow the measure to go on the ballot.
Biltis, who said he has spent more than $1.2 million on the campaign so far, said it is time for Arizona to step up and reclaim its constitutional rights.
The "flagship'' example, he said, is the federal Affordable Care Act. He said there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which gives the federal government the power to enact a national health care plan.
Biltis acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court, faced with exactly that question, ruled to the contrary.
"I believe the Supreme Court completely got it wrong,'' he said. In fact, Biltis argued, the ability of the nation's high court to interpret -- and invalidate -- federal laws itself is not part of the U.S. Constitution but was claimed by the court in 1803.
"The only portion of government that has unlimited powers are the state governments and the people themselves,'' he said. Biltis said that, under his measure, Arizona could simply refuse to participate, though it would do so at risk of losing federal dollars.
But Biltis' objections to federal authority are not partisan. He is equally upset with the Patriot Act, passed during the administration of George W. Bush, which gives the federal government broad powers to detain people without trial.
And then there are other issues that might not seem so weighty but that Biltis finds to be constitutionally unacceptable, like the federal law, signed during the Bush administration, which phases out the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs to save energy. The most popular replacement to date has been compact fluorescent bulbs which have their own environmental issues if broken.
"Besides the insanity of it, if you have a federal government that can choose to ban a light bulb that has existed for 100 years, that served us pretty well, what can't they do?'' he asked.
Nor is Biltis troubled by the idea of individual states interpreting federal law -- and nullifying those they believe are unconstitutional. He said that is precisely what happened in pre-Civil War days when some Northern states refused to honor the federal Fugitive Slave Act which required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.
"Those things are the wrong side of history,'' he said.
Biltis acknowledged his measure would allow Arizona to ignore other federal mandates, such as integration of schools. But he said there are various safeguards for that, ranging from public sentiment and pressure to the ability of 34 other states to amend the U.S. Constitution to give the federal government the explicit power to overrule what Arizonans might have done.
There actually will be two sovereignty measures on the ballot.
A separate proposal crafted by Rep. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, would have Arizona declare its "sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within its boundaries.'' Exempt would be tribal and military reservations.
LPK posted at 6:39 pm on Tue, Jul 10, 2012.
How crazy does our state have to get before we the people get rid of these idiots? They are an embarrassment to the entire state. and are costing us our dignity . I for one am tired of being known as the stupidest state in the union.
Mike McClellan posted at 3:44 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Here we go again. . . why do the Republitarians love to spend our money in fruitless court battles?
The first time our esteemed Republitarian legislature nullifies a federal law, we'll be hauled into court. And who pays the legal bills for these Republitarian inanities?
That'd be us.
They're conservative, all right, except for when they aren't.
Engaged Voter posted at 2:30 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
"That could occur through a vote of the state House and Senate with consent of the governor."
You mean those same state Legislature members, like Silvia Allen, who believe the earth is 6000 years old?
Gawd help us!
downtownresident posted at 2:15 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Ignorance is bliss. That's why the mental midgets of the legislature are always smiling when they take our money for betraying us.
The inmates are running the asylum here.
Arizona Willie posted at 11:45 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
There is only one thing to do - VOTE THE RABID DROOLING KNUCKLE DRAGGERS OUT.
Vote against ALL incumbents both in the State Legislature and in the Corporate Congress in Washington.
Dale Whiting posted at 10:37 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Now it is beyond any doubt. Arizona legistators are crazy!
CSalafia posted at 9:39 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Wow,
Conservatives love the Constitution except when it gets in their way.
What's frightening, and I do mean frightening, about his measure is that it completely abrogates the judicial branch, the one in charge of determining Constitutionality, and replaces it with the 90 idjits in the State Legislature and their "belief" that it violates the Constitution.
"More to the point, it would allow Arizonans "to reject any federal action that they determine violates the United States Constitution."
Just more proof that those who scream "follow the Constitution" the loudest typically don't know what it says.
PeacefulCat posted at 8:48 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
ARIZONA VOTER PROTECTION ACT
PROPOSITION 105
Arizona voters battled lawmakers and leaders to finally bring Medical Marijuana to a vote in 1996. That measure passed with a 65% margin and our Legislature overturned that law. This forced citizens to bring Proposition 105 to a vote in 1998. There were 435,520 people that voted to defeat the “Arizona Voter Protection Act” that prevents our adversarial Governor and Legislature from vetoing or obstructing laws the people initiate and the voters approve. But Arizona won “voter protection” from our public servants.
In 2010 Arizona voters again forced another vote for Medical Marijuana and won in spite of an all out assault by our Leaders and the Arizona Republic to defeat this law and these suffering patients with a media scare campaign of misinformation.
Then Governor Brewer and Will Humble (Head of the Department of Health Services) waged a campaign to sabotage the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act and created an ambush of litigation to stop medical marijuana patients from having legal access to marijuana. Bombs of litigation are exploding from Washington to our backyards and these warriors against the will of the people refuse to surrender.
Judge Gama’s ruling has come back from the Arizona Courts regarding Governor Brewer and Will Humble’s attack on the medical marijuana law. His ruling continually defers to the will and intent of the voters:
MARICOPA COUNTY
CV 2011-011290 01/17/2012
Judge Gama:
In construing a statute adopted by initiative, the Court’s primary objective “is to give effect to the intent of the electorate.” Fogliano v. Brain ex rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 2011 WL6056999, at *5 (Ariz. App. Dec. 6, 2011) (quotation and citation omitted).
The voters passed Proposition 203 informed of marijuana’s therapeutic value in treating a wide array of debilitating medical conditions. Prop. 203, at § 2(B). The voters intended to protect patients with those debilitating medical conditions (and their physicians and providers) “from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties and property forfeiture if such patients engage in the medical use of marijuana.” Id. at § 2(G). The voters contemplated this be done in 120 days.
We have a governor and the head of our State Health Department pouring through the language of Proposition 203 for any loop hole they can find to continue this sabotage of the law and will of the people. This struggle between the citizens and our public servants shines a bright light on a problem that is much deeper than the Federal Government, Cancer or the Liberty to use Marijuana.
Bingo6 posted at 8:45 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
My duty is to my country's flag not to this ridiculus state and the idiots running it, my ancestors fought and died to defeat these morons in the civil war so don't ask me to spit on my American flag.
mwd2525 posted at 8:36 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Ok,I think we already hashed all this out in a little thing called The Civil War!!!!! Do I hate the so-called Patriot Act......yes,do we need a ballot initiative to define our rites as a state? No. We are already disregarding many federal laws in Az without this,namely medical marijuana. If enough people in enough states dont like a federal law then said people will not follow that law and eventually the law will change.We now have 16 states that have legalized medical marijuana.How long before the federal government wakes up and does the same? Not long I would argue.
chuckles3 posted at 8:19 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
While I am with this in spirit, it will go nowhere. The Feds enjoy their power way too much.
k33j88 posted at 5:28 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
The hell with chris matthews thrill up his leg when obama is mentioned. There's a thrill up my leg when I see that protector of freedom, Colt model 1911, that won WW2. Did I forget to mention a warm & fuzzy feeling too? [thumbup] Back on topic----Yes to both sovereignty measures on the November ballot.
wdgnas posted at 5:19 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
i know the answers, but i have to ask the questions. will the counties be able to do the same to the state? will the cities be able to do the same to the counties? will the individual be able to do the city?