Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The "Birthers-Birchers-Secessionists" Tea-Publican insurrectionists put secession from the United States on the November ballot.
The House passed HCR 2004 on a 38-20 vote, sending the resolution to the Secretary of State. The resolution refers to the ballot a constitutional amendment declaring state sovereignty over lands, air, water, minerals, wildlife and the state's other natural resources based on the argument of "equal footing." It will appear on the ballot as Proposition 120.
So this November Arizonans will suffer the national embarrassment of having to vote on whether to secede from the United States. Of course, it is unconstitutional and entirely unenforceable.
Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a companion statutory measure, SB 1332. See, Ariz. gov. vetoes bill that demanded federal lands.
Now comes along another Neoconfederate ballot proposal, the so-called "Checks and Balances in Government" citizens initiative, backed by a nutty Scottsdale millionaire businessman, Jack Biltis.
This initiative is nothing less than a revival of John C. Calhoun's Theory of Nullification. You know, the concept that led to the secession of the Confederate states, Civil War and the death of over 620,000+ American citizens, and was rejected in the post-war 14th Amendment.
The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports Businessman spends $1.2 million to put nullification measure on ballot:
Jack Biltis, the president of TAG Employer Services, submitted more than 320,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office on Thursday afternoon for the Checks and Balances in Government initiative. The proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution states that Arizona can reject a federal action, either through a public vote or through the legislative process.
The initiative needs 259,213 signatures to get on the ballot.
* * *
But even if the Checks and Balances in Government initiative passes in November, Biltis’ efforts and hard-earned cash will likely be wasted, said Paul Bender, a constitutional law professor at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.
Bender said the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that federal law is the supreme law of the land and takes precedent over state laws, prohibits states from nullifying federal actions. The initiative would absolutely be found unconstitutional in court, Bender said, though the state would likely have to attempt to reject a federal law before it could be challenged.
“The Supremacy Clause is pretty explicit. If it’s a valid federal law – that is, if it complies with the federal Constitution – then it applies in every state, and states … have no power to exempt themselves,” Bender said. “It doesn’t matter whether it’s in the state Constitution, statute, a state initiative –federal law is supreme.”
The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, and the Privileges and immunities Clause, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, preclude the long-discredited Nullification theory. The Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 3, also recognizes "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."
Biltis, a native Canadian who is a naturalized U.S. citizen, demonstrating his ignorance of the constitution and law, and lack of knowledge of American history, disagrees.
There is only one way to deal with nuts like Biltis. They are to be held up to public ridicule and shame.
There is no place in the 21st Century for long-discredited 19th Century political theories that Americans paid for in a bloody Civil War. It is outrageous that Arizonans will suffer the national embarrassment of having to vote on whether to secede from the United States. Of course, it is unconstitutional and entirely unenforceable. If it's on the ballot, just vote "no."
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Get a quote about secession and we’ll talk. This blog post is ridden with hyperbole and you’re drowning in your own fantasies. Checks and Balances has nothing to do with secession. The Federal Government is not a holy institution that does no wrong. I support, fully, taking a stand against them when necessary and when they flagrantly abuse the Constitution (a growing trend under Bush II & Obama).
FYI…I signed the Checks and Balances petition. Have a nice day in Baja Arizona.
Baja Arizona seeks a “partition” from the state of Maricopa and wishes to remain a loyal state of the United States of America. I cannot say the same for the state of Maricopa.
When a state lays claim to federal lands, in direct contravention of the enabling act by which it was admitted as a state, and asserts the right to nullify any federal law with which it disagrees, it is a form of “soft secession.” It may not lead to civil war but it will lead to armed conflict with the federal government.
I would remind you that when this Neoconfederate “states’ rights” doctrine was revived in response to the Civil Rights Movement, President Eisenhower federalized the National Guard in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 after Governor Orval Faubus refused to comply with a court order for school desegregation.
President Kennedy federalized the National Guard and sent federal troops to the University of Mississippi in 1962 when Governor Ross Barnett refused to allow James Meredith to enroll at “Ole Miss.”
President Kennedy sent several thousand troops to Alabama in 1963 in response to the brutality of Sheriff Bull Connor after Martin Luther King, Jr. and civil rights marchers were subjected to police violence including police dogs and high-pressure fire hoses to put down demonstrations.
President Kennedy also federalized the National Guard in Alabama in 1963 when George Wallace “stood in the schoolhouse door” to prevent black students from enrolling at the University of Alabama.
This is the kind of “states’ rights” confrontation with the federal government that this initiative is designed to engender. This fool wants to refight battles that are long-settled based upon the long-discredited “Nullification Theory” that is in direct contravention of the supremacy clause and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
If you don’t think there are politicians in this state who would use this unconstitutional and unenforceable initiative to provoke a conflict with the federal government so they can demagogue as the next George Wallace, you haven’t been paying attention.
Any campaign that doesn’t hurt me I can easily ignore or have no opinion on. Jack Biltis seems like just another guy with an extra million dollars who is worried about the direction Arizona is going. If his recommended solution is good, bad or without effect it will hardly be must much better or worse than many passed with force of law by the official lawmakers.
Does this blog also get upset when socialists in Vermont talk of secession or when “Baja Arizona” talks of breaking away from Arizona?
…and then Confederate troops in Charleston, SC, commanded by newly-commissioned Confederate General Beauregard (of Louisiana), under direct orders from Confederate President Jefferson Davis, fired upon Fort Sumter, forcing its evacuation and starting a WAR.
(Unlike anything that’s going to happen if SB 1332 becomes law.)
I don’t think we’re disagreeing. My point was that it was the bombardment, not the vote, that caused the war. If this idiotic initiative passes, it’s not going to result in military conflict. I’m just saying it’s pretty hyperbolic to call it secession.
I take it Jack Biltis is a friend of yours that you hang out with on the Looney Tunes fringe?
States did not vote for secession? There is a gap in your education. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/secessionacts.html
What is it with stoners and NORMAL?
You may call Biltis crazy and a nut, but the Daughters of Bilitis certainly are to be honored: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_Bilitis
Secede? Really? Can you get a quote from a actual Arizona State legislature that includes that word so that someone who can be held to account for the “this is secession” assertion instead of one anonymous guy who posts on a blog because I don’t believe secession is at all the intent [not that I would have ANY objection to such an intent] of those advocating these ideas (again all the advocates have actual names so they can be held to account for their words [be they outrageous, ridiculous or not].
My recollection of the so-called Civil War was that some states wanted to secede from the united States of America and the northern states said “No you may not.”
Jeff Simpson – States did vote to secede and the federal government ignored these votes (which they should have). Because the US government would not leave Fort Sumter after South Caroline seceded, South Carolina troops bombarded it. Not sure what distinction you are trying to draw here, but I don’t think you have your history right.
What I find beyond stupid about HRC 2004 is the idea that Arizona ‘possesses’ air and water. I know many of the legislators who approved this aren’t believers in science, but this is just moronic.
Before we get carried away (nullification /= secession) we should remember that the civil war wasn’t caused by any vote. It was caused by confederate armies taking up arms and attacking federal troops. They tried to militarily conquer the USA. This initiative is just silly wingnuttery — it’s not going to cause a war.
By the way, the issue of federal supremacy has always been challenged by the states with lesser and greater degrees of success. I think if you look at what’s happening with medical marijuana in CA and WA and elsewhere, you can really see how negotiable the issues are. The states continue to move forward with their programs in absolute contravention of federal law, and even though they’re raiding some dispensaries, the feds aren’t militarily occupying state capitols. It’s not an existential threat.