HB 2643 (.pdf) would preclude Arizona from establishing a state exchange to purchase insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The evil purpose behind this bill is that, should the “felonious five” of the U.S. Supreme Court gut the ACA insurance subsidies for states that participate in the federal insurance exchange (like Arizona), the Tea-Publicans in the Arizona legislature want to preclude the simple remedy of the state of Arizona establishing its own state insurance exchange (which the state could then delegate the operation of to the federal government). The GOP’s healthcare plan for Arizona is “perhaps you should die and decrease the surplus population.” The bill was approved by the House Committee of the Whole (COW) on Monday.
What these evil geniuses (sic) overlook is that a citizens initiative takes precedence over simple legislative acts. The people of Arizona can enact a state insurance exchange through a citizens initiative. I recommend that the hospital and healthcare industry in Arizona get busy on this initiative right away.
HB 2368 is Obama Derangement Syndrome, and is unconstitutional. It would bar the state from funding any presidential executive orders or policy directives from the U.S. Department of Justice unless these were approved by Congress and signed into law. The bill was approved by the House Committee of the Whole (COW) on Monday.
I doubt these little Johnny Rebs have the slightest idea how many presidential executive orders and policy directives dating back at least to the Theodore Roosevelt administration that this bill would impact. This is nothing more than a “We hate Barack Obama!” hissy-fit. The Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution render this “nullification” bill unconstitutional.
The ammosexual gun fetishists and gun worshippers from Arizona Citizens Defense League are the drafters of the truly insane and unconstitutional HB 2431 (.pdf), the so-called “uniform firearms transfer compact,” 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. Teabagger Rep. Bob Thorpe, R-Flagstaff, is the sponsor of this bill.
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. Oops!
This is why the only interstate compacts that exist are almost all for natural resource management, like rivers and watershed management, environmental management, or transportation management — all approved by Congress under federal laws. Congress is not going to authorize a compact for a “Second Amendment Supremacy” zone.
What these Neo-Confederate Secessionists are really talking about is a “confederacy” of states that purports to give veto power (nullification) to any participant state over the state sovereignty of each other participant state, and the rights of its citizens. It would preclude a voter-approved initiative to change the law, in violation of the Arizona Constitution. This is not even a “states’ rights” issue. This is an ammosexual gun fetishists and gun worshippers wet dream elevating their absolutist view of the Second Amendment to supremacy over all other laws.
Just listen to Charles Heller, spokesman for the ammosexual gun fetishists and gun worshippers from Arizona Ctizens Defense League. Gun bill would tie hands of Arizona voters:
Charles Heller, spokesman for the Arizona Citizens Defense League, which crafted the measure, said what’s being targeted are efforts led by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to get states to do what Congress has refused to do: Require those who sell weapons to others to first see if they have a criminal record.
What makes the measure significant is once any other state signs the compact with Arizona, lawmakers here would be virtually powerless to overrule it.
Instead, lawmakers would be allowed to opt out only once every five years. Otherwise, it would take the consent of other states.
It even would preclude a voter-approved initiative to change the law.
* * *
Heller said the measure is intended to tie the hands of both lawmakers and voters because, “The higher law is protecting the civil right. And you don’t get to vote on my rights. Nobody does.”
He said that would be like voting for a measure that denies rights to people based on their race. Heller said those kinds of statutes, known as Jim Crow laws, existed for decades in the South.
“If you liked Jim Crow, you’ll love background checks,” Heller said.
Anyway, he said, it’s a misnomer to say the only thing at issue would be requiring a seller to determine if a buyer is legally eligible to own a firearm.
“A background check is called registration,” he said.
“It registers every transaction and it bans private party sales,” Heller continued. “What you have is an inviolate right to use your own property any way you want as long as you don’t hurt somebody else or damage their property.”
Holy crap, Dude. You are batshit crazy insane! First of all, gun ownership may be a constitutional right, but it is not a civil right, as traditionally defined under law:
A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places.
And is Heller really equating background checks for gun owners — to reject convicted felons and adjudicated insane under federal gun laws — to being an African-American freed slave living under the horrendous deprivation of civil rights of Jim Crow laws and Black Codes in the Post-Reconstruction era after the Civil War? This is offensive beyond words. There is no justifiable comparison. This asshole needs to apologize to the African-American community.
Heller’s obsessive concern with background checks leads me to believe that he has something to hide in his background that he does not want discovered. After all, if he is a “law abiding gun owner,” what does he have to fear from a background check?
And remember Heller’s comment “that would be like voting for a measure that denies rights to people based on their race,” when Cathi Herrod and the Center for Arizona Policy bring their bill to allow state sanctioned discrimination against gays under the guise of “religious liberty.” Is Heller and his organization going to oppose Herrod’s gay segregation bill? Yeah, right.