The oath of office for state legislators is found at A.R.S.§38-231(E):
State of Arizona, County of ______________ I, _____________________ (type or print name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of ______________________ (name of office) ________________________ according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm).
______________________________________
(signature of officer or employee)
It is only March, but every Tea-Publican in the Arizona Legislature has already managed to violate their oath of office by voting in favor of “interposition, nullification and secession” bills. Every one of them should submit their resignation, and be disqualified from holding public office. 14th Amendment Section 3: “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Arizona’s Neo-Confederate insurrectionists are having an amazing week this week. You should ask why the media is not reporting this.
HB 2368 (.pdf), “sovereign authority; executive orders; DOJ,” sponsored by Teabagger Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff), purports not to recognize any executive orders or policies of the president or executive branch, unless approved by Congress (The separation of powers doctrine and comity between coequal branches of government renders this argument nonsense. Executive orders have the same force and effect of law as acts of Congress). The bill was passed in the House on Tuesday on a straight party-line vote of 36-24.
HB 2176 (.pdf), “federal land relinquishment; payments,” also sponsored by Teabagger Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff), directs the state land commissioner to “request” that “all constitutionally nonenumerated federal land within this state through sale,” and directs the attorney general to “initiate proceedings against the United States in order to force the relinquishment of all remaining constitutionally nonenumerated federal land within this state to the state land trust.” The bill was passed in the House on Tuesday on a straight party-line vote of 36-24.
HB 2175 (.pdf), again sponsored by Teabagger Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff) and Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley), asserts and claims rights-of-way across (federal) public lands, and asserts that “This state does not recognize or consent, and has not consented, to the exchange, waiver or abandonment of any Revised Statute 2477 right‑of‑way across public lands unless by formal, written official action that was taken by the state, county or municipal agency or instrumentality that held the right-of-way across public lands and that was recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the public lands are located.” The bill was passed in the House on Tuesday on a straight party-line vote of 35-24 (Michele Ugenti not voting).
HB 2318 (.pdf), “transfer of public lands compact,” sponsored by Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley) and Brenda Barton (R-Payson), purports to create an interstate compact on the transfer of (federal) public lands. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that “no state shall enter into an agreement or compact with another state” without the consent of Congress. The bill was passed in the House on Tuesday on a straight party-line vote of 36-24.
HB 2321 (.pdf), “public lands; conveyance and taxation,” again sponsored by Teabagger Reps. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff)and Brenda Barton (R-Payson),demands that the United States government extinguish title to all public lands in and transfer title to the state of Arizona. The bill was passed in the House on Tuesday on a straight party-line vote of 36-24.
Still awaiting a final vote in the House is HCM 2005 (.pdf), “federal lands; devolution to Arizona,” sponsored by Reps. Barton, Gray, Shope, Thorpe and Townsend, a memorial to the Congress which demands “That the United States government immediately and not later than December 31, 2019 dispose of the public lands within Arizona’s borders directly to the State of Arizona.”
Also awaiting a COW vote in the House is HB 2055 (.pdf), a striker that is now “sovereign authority; water; United States,” again sponsored by Teabagger Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff).
Also awaiting a final vote in the House is HB 2643 (.pdf), “sovereign authority; affordable care act,” sponsored by Reps. Justin Olson (R-Mesa) and Vince Leach (R- Saddlebrooke), which would preclude Arizona and any future legislature from establishing a state run health insurance exchange under the Affordable Care Act.
Also awaiting a final vote in the House is HB 2058 (.pdf), a striker that is now “sovereign authority; federal rules; regulations,” again sponsored by Teabagger Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff).
Also awaiting a final vote in the House is HB 2431, “uniform firearms transfer compact,” again sponsored by Teabagger Reps. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff)and Brenda Barton (R-Payson), which would require Arizona to enter into compacts with other states that agree not to enact any law, regulation or policy on the transfer of firearms that is more restrictive than federal law. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that “no state shall enter into an agreement or compact with another state” without the consent of Congress. It would preclude a voter-approved initiative to change the law, in violation of the Arizona Constitution.
SB 1330 (.pdf), “prohibited activities; second amendment violations,” sponsored by Sen. Kelli Ward (R-Lake Havasu City, is a “nullification” bill that purports to nullify federal gun laws and to prohibit state and local agencies from enforcing federal gun laws. But wait, there’s more! It also says “Any agent or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state who knowingly violates this Section is deemed to have resigned any commission from this State that the person may possess, the person’s office is deemed vacant and the person is forever after ineligible to hold any office of trust, honor or emolument under the laws of this State.” Ironic, considering this is what should happen to anyone who votes in favor of this bill. The bill is awaiting a final vote in the Senate.
As Laurie Roberts of The Arizona Republic opined, Oh, just secede already, Arizona Legislature.
If this was 1861, Abraham Lincoln would be sending federal troops to Arizona to put down this Confederate insurrection against the United States government.
It would not surprise me that these Tea-Publicans — who have abandoned any right to call themselves Republicans or the “Party of Lincoln” — will try to instigate a “Fort Sumter” confrontation with the federal government, as their inspiration and hero Cliven Bundy attempted last summer. They want to force President Obama’s hand, just as the Confederacy forced Lincoln’s hand.
Why this outrageous insurrectionist conduct is being tolerated by the good citizens of Arizona and downplayed by our feckless news media is inexplicable. 150 years ago this conduct led to Civil War.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It should be a mandate before they can be sworn into office that they must pass a test on the US and Arizona Constitution. If they can’t pass the test sign a waiver that their votes may be in direct conflict to the U.S. and Arizona constitutions.
Or at least stop with I’m a constitutionalist which seems to be the mantra of Arizona Republicans.
Believe it or not, legislators do get a crash course on the constitution and Arizona law before they are sworn in. They either have very poor instructors, or they are very poor students, and there are no consequences for either failure.
“You should ask why the media is not reporting this.’
Because, unlike you, and the demorats that passed the ACA, they must have read the bills.
Let’s just start with section I of the first bill, HB 2368:
“6 PURSUANT TO THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY OF THIS STATE AND ARTICLE II,
7 SECTION 3, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, THIS STATE AND ALL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
8 OF THIS STATE ARE PROHIBITED FROM USING ANY PERSONNEL OR FINANCIAL RESOURCES
9 TO ENFORCE, ADMINISTER OR COOPERATE WITH AN EXECUTIVE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
10 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT HAS NOT BEEN AFFIRMED BY A VOTE OF THE
11 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES AND SIGNED INTO LAW AS PRESCRIBED BY THE
12 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND WHICH WERE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF,
13 THIS PROHIBITION MAY BE WAIVED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY EITHER A VOTE OF
14 THE LEGISLATURE WHILE IN SESSION OR BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE
15 SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHILE THE LEGISLATURE
16 IS NOT IN SESSION.”
You may wish to refer to USSC, Prigg v. Pennsylvania.
But, on the bright side, two of your eight readers, North of the river and Pamela, think you are right.
Seriously Troll, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842) involving the Fugitive Slave Act is what you want to rely on as precedent for voiding executive orders? The court held that the Federal Fugitive Slave Act precluded a Pennsylvania state law that prohibited blacks from being taken out of Pennsylvania into slavery. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution was later superseded by the 13th Amendment, so the basis on which the case was argued is no longer relevant. And it has nothing to do with executive orders.
What, you think throwing out a case name without any explanation makes you appear that you know something? You are an idiot, troll, as you have routinely demonstrated in your comments.
There are literally hundreds of executive orders by every president dating back to George Washington that are still in force and effect today. Here’s a summary, troll. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
There is nothing in U.S. constitutional law that requires an executive order to be affirmed by the Congress to tale force and effect.
The case was cited as an example of the court holding that states cannot be compelled to enforce federal law. That AZ will not use it’s resources to that end is clearly stated in the example I posted of section 1 of HBO 2368! All of the proposed bils you listed follow that same tract and is a legitimate course for the state of AZ to take.
Either you failed to comprehend that point or chose to deflect from it since it completely destroyed the entire premise of you post. Both of those scenarios would lead any reasonable person to conclude that the “idiot” is you!
I know that you Tenthers like to think of yourselves in the same light as the abolitionists, but that comparison is bullshit. You like to cite the dicta (nonbinding) discussion in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, but Tenthers always disregard the actual holding. The court held in this case that the Federal Fugitive Slave Act precluded a Pennsylvania state law that prohibited blacks from being taken out of Pennsylvania into slavery, in violation of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
“This doctrine was fully recognised by this Court, in the case of Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. Rep. 1, 21, 22; where it was expressly held, that where Congress have exercised a power over a particular subject given them by the Constitution, it is not competent for state legislation to add to the provisions of Congress upon that subject; for that the will of Congress upon the whole subject is as clearly established by what it had not declared, as by what it has expressed.
* * *
These are some of the reasons, but by no means all, upon which we hold the power of legislation on this subject to be exclusive in Congress.
* * *
But such regulations can never be permitted to interfere with or to obstruct the just rights of the owner to reclaim his slave, derived from the Constitution of the United States; or with the remedies prescribed by Congress to aid and enforce the same.
Upon these grounds, we are of opinion that the act of Pennsylvania upon which this indictment is founded, is unconstitutional and void.”
Your fantastical revisionist history and inability to understand a court ruling, and the fact that it has been superseded by the post Civil War Amendments prohibiting slavery, just demonstrates that you are in fact an idiot.
Which of those bills OBSTRUCT federal law? Which attempt to make, or declare, a federal law ILLEGAL?
You continue to argue a point not in dispute in an attempt to perpetrate the myth you put forth in the original blog.
Since the President will be in Phoenix Friday,why doesn’t he lock up these Crazy Repubicans?
If the Legislature secedes from the US, it would be a perfect time for Baja Arizona to rise up.
What a list!
The national media has been focused on Hillary’s email for a week, and the Star is focused on dream pods.
I was recently asked by a supporter of the Baja Arizona movement from a few years ago if it was time to revive the movement. You will recall that the media mocked Baja Arizona, but we were looking to separate from Arizona to remain a loyal state of the United States. It is our crazy neighbors to the North who are in insurrection against the U.S. government. The media always focuses on the wrong thing.