For years Tea Partiers have been pushing for a Constitutional Convention (AKA Con-Con) for a balanced budget and more.
The Con-Con has passed the Arizona House of Representatives several times, but stalled in the Senate. This year there are four Con-Con bills on the agenda for the Federalism, Property Rights and Public Policy Committee on Tuesday, January 31.
HCR2010 (Townsend) declares that the Arizona Legislature wants a Constitutional Convention. (Concurrent resolution with the Senate.)
HCR2006 (Thorpe) includes a wish list of changes to the Constitution. (Concurrent resolution with the Senate.)
HCR2013 (Mesnard) calls for a Constitutional Convention for a federal balanced budget. (Concurrent resolution with the Senate.)
HB2226 (Mesnard) also calls for a Constitutional Convention for a federal balanced budget and includes details of the balanced budget. (House only bill.)
In previous years, the Con-Con bills were stopped at the door of the Senate by former Senate President Andy Biggs, who resigned the Legislature to run for Congress. Biggs is so opposed to the Con-Con that he wrote a book about it– The Con of the Con-Con.
Posted in Arizona State Legislature, Budgets, Civil Rights, Constitution, GOP War On..., Gun Policies, Justice, Pamela Powers Hannley
Tagged Arizona Legislature, Con-Con, Constitutional Convention, US Constitution
Howard Fischer reports, Tucson asks State Supreme Court to toss out AG complaint:
The city of Tucson is asking the state supreme court to throw out a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Mark Brnovich that the claims the city is in violation of state law for its policy to destroy confiscated guns.
The 30-page motion filed Thursday night suggests the legal mechanism that brought the complaint to the state’s highest court – SB 1487 – is unconstitutional and therefore, unenforceable.
Additionally, city officials argue the gun destruction policy – which applies to handguns and semi-automatic weapons – is protected as Tucson is a charter city.
Tucson is among 18 cities that have taken advantage of a constitutional provision allowing them to write their own charters.
The filing also asks the Supreme Court to instead have a lower court to hear the case – the city has filed a case in Pima County Superior Court – so that the issues raised in the superior court action that the City has filed can be heard.
Attorneys for the city, Richard M. Rollman and Richard A. Brown, argue that the state legislature wrote SB 1487 in an effort to force local municipalities into rescinding controversial policies.
“It may be that the Legislature disagrees with the authority given to charter cities by the constitutional framers. But, rights granted by the constitution can only be withdrawn by a constitutional amendment that is approved by the voters pursuant to Article 21 of the Arizona Constitution. Section 41-194.01 seeks to avoid that requirement by coercing any city that seeks to exercise its charter city authority through the prospect of catastrophic financial sanctions without judicial review,” they wrote.