Arizona to secede from the Union (without OFFICIALLY doing so)

[RamboLiberal]

Members of the state Legislature, including Arizona's de facto governor, Senate President Russell Pearce, have introduced a bill that essentially would have Arizona secede from the union without having to do so officially.

Really.

It's called SB1433, (See it here.) It creates a 12-member committee within the legislature that could "vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government…"

Committee members themselves would decide this, then pass along their recommendation to the full Legislature. If, in turn, a majority of state lawmakers go along with the committee then, according to the bill, "this state and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order."

The nullification committee also would be permitted to review all existing federal laws to see if our legislative geniuses want to toss them out as well.

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/EJMontini/117684

[Wickerman]

1. No Federal dollars for you, Arizona

lets see how that works out, huh?

[Make7]

6. And send them a bill for all the previous federal money spent on highways, water projects, etc. (nt)

[Horse with no Name]

15. Bet their citizens wouldn't like the Medicare and Social Security to stop

in fact, I bet they wouldn't like it at all.

[Statistical]

2. How is that secede from the Union? Stupid yes. Succession no.

[JoePhilly]

3. I think his OP handles that ...

They want to do everything BUT officially secede.

States don't get to throw out federal laws that they don't like. They are BOUND by federal laws.

If a state can ignore any federal law they want, in essence, they have stopped being a state.

They want to have their government cake, and eat it too.

[madrchsod]

4. arizonia really is a third world country...

i feel sorry for all the intelligent people in arizonia. you are welcome in illinois but i know it`s cold up here.

[NoPasaran]

5. Nullification, not secession

South Carolina tried it in the 1830s and Andy Jackson stood them down.

[du_da]

8. Your history is a bit off.

Nullification doctrine started 30 years prior to that with Virgina and Kentucky. Then when South Carolina used it in response to a tariff both the state and the federal governments postured with legislation allowing use of force to enforce or defend their respective positions. However, because Jackson viewed South Carolina's concern as legitimate his version of standing them down was to rewrite the tariff that they nullified into a form they would find acceptable. Thus the nullification stood and a separate tariff bill was put in place to replace it.


The problem with Nullification Doctrine is the Supremecy Clause however since the state legislation specifically states that only federal legislation outside of what is authorized by the Constitution then I don't think it runs afoul of the Supremacy Clause as written. Now as implemented is an entirely different issue.

What this law really does is give the state of AZ legal standing to challenge in court any federal law even prior to implementation without the need to show any damage. This is because simply the process of passing nullification in response to such legislation establishes standing due to what at that time is an existing conflict, or even worse it forces the federal government to go to court and have to justify the authority of the law in question and enforce it under the Supremacy Clause.

This might be a good thing, maybe it is long overdue that we have a national discussion about this topic and write an amendment that puts an end to the conflict once and for all.

[Recursion]

19. Well, Ohio tried to nullify the fugitive slave law, too

Then suddenly all of Dixie were singing hymns to Federal supremacy.

[du_da]

22. Correct me if I am wrong

The legitimacy of nullification of the fugitive slave laws was not put into question. The south didn't like it but I don't remember reading of any structure for a legal challenge that was utilized to challenge nullification just a lot of complaining and diplomatic decisions effecting other aspect of the relationships between the states, such as the slave law nullification being included as one of the reasons for secession by South Carolina.

Assuming that is accurate then although certainly distasteful that doesn't appear to be hypocrisy. Not that they didn't have plenty of other actions that screamed hypocrisy just that their stance on nullification seems to have been consistent. The real kicker seems to if the legislation being nullified in any specific instance falls within the Constitutionally defined authority of the federal government. Which is the qualifier applied in the Arizona legislation as well, so based on that this doesn't seem like much of a problem unless we are planning to work outside of Constitutional boundaries.

[S_E_Fudd]

34. I think saying Jackson belived it was legitimate is wrong...

In fact he threatened military action if South Carolina did not back down. He agreed to a face saving measure for SC to avoid bloodshed.

The Kentucky and Virginia resolves did come earlier but were merely theoretical exercises (written largely by Thomas Jefferson) and no serious attempt was made to challenge federal supremacy.

In his Proclamation to South Carolina Jackson said"

"I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed"

The supremacy of federal law has been upheld on many occasions since. And the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of federal law. States can challenge it in court certainly, but cannot refuse to implement until it has been litigated.

This law, if it passes, will be struck down quick...

Having said all of that, I would have no problem if Arizona decided it would like to secede entirely. The country, not to mention federal coffers would be a lot better off...

[du_da]

37. I did not say he agreed that nullification was right

I said he agreed that they had a valid complaint about the tariff that started the process. While he certainly did not agree with nullification, note that he didn't legally challenge it either. Be that to save face and prevent blood shed is certainly a logical reason for doing so but the difference in action taken vs action that could have been taken is significant. If for no other reason, it shows the willingness of the state in question to back its claim against what if viewed as federal incursion.

We might certainly agree that Jackson took the nobel path and was the better man because of it but we can't ignore the division that existed on the issue. And as you noted the original nullifications were at least in part from Jefferson who also knew a little something about the Constitution's meaning and the designed balance of power between federal and state. These ideas may make us a bit uncomfortable today, but we ignore their relevance to our foundation and structure at our own peril.


As for can the states' ability to refuse implementation that is on an issue by issue basis. They certainly can refuse to do so and short of going to court or with holding funding there is little the federal government can do, then the issue can be litigated to clarify constitutionality and if the state is wrong they could be forced to concede and implement as the federal law would then not fall under the guise of the state law in question, but if they are right there is no penalty in place for their unwillingness to do so in the interim. As such, I would argue by its very definition that law would stand so long as it doesn't claim to supersede the SC's authority as the final arbiter.

[S_E_Fudd]

38. That may be..

But that is not the issue. It is whether states on their own can nullify federal law within their borders...whether that law is unconstitutional or not...Andrew Jackson believed they could not, and 180 years of case law since says they cannot.

I would argue Jefferson is not a particularly reliable as to the interpretation of the constitution. First of all, he was not present while it was debated. While he was kept apprised of the debate by James Madison, he and Madison did not see eye to eye at that time, with Madison favoring a stronger federal government than we have now...he proposed federal nullification of state law for example (while Hamilton actually favored abolishing states altogether). Jefferson had an almost childlike belief in the virtue of the populace...believing that virtue made anything but a minimally functional federal government unnecessary. This manifested itself in his strong opposition to a standing army and navy for example.

Jefferson's interpretation of what was constitutional and what wasn't seemed to change depending on how it suited him politically. In his fights with Hamilton over assumption and the national bank he professed a desire for a strictly interpreted constitution, noting there was no provision in the constitution expressly authorizing this as a federal power. Yet when he decided he wanted to acquire the Louisiana territory he did it in a way that completely contradicted the interpretation of the constitution he professed to believe in.

I believe your interpretation of the effect of this state law is backwards. States are bound to assume the constitutionality of federal law until it has been declared that it is not by the federal judiciary, the only entity in the United States empowered to do so, not the other way around. Were it the way you say the federal government would have time to do nothing else but litigate.

And there is certainly something the federal government can do when states refuse to enforce federal law...as Alabama and Arkansas found out in the 1950s and 60s.

[barbiegeek]

7. Bye AZ, Have fun getting your own water.

[truebrit71]

9. ...and protecting your own borders...

..it must be the sun...

[savalez]

13. Doesn't AZ get back more in federal spending and

benefits than they pay in federal taxes?

[du_da]

18. In all fairness

they don't seem particularlly keen on those programs anyway so by all means let them do their own thing and stop sending them money.

[vim876]

31. If AZ secedes...

I'll support a border fence between us and them.

[GSLevel9]

25. by the way... just for correct-ness sakes

http://www.columbia.edu/~kk2534/Phoenix%20Water/Water%20Supply/Water%20Supply%20Info.html

The state of Arizona receives its water from three main sources, the Colorado River, Arizona surface water (sources other than the Colorado river, such as lakes and streams), and groundwater. A fourth source, effluent water (water mixed with waste matter that can be reused), is also utilized but to a far less extent (3). The percentages of water used from each resource in Arizona are respectively: 34.5%, 17.2%, 35.8%, and 12.3% (25).

The Colorado River is a source of water for seven U.S. States and Mexico. Its water is collected and distributed through a series of federally constructed reservoirs that divert water to each State with its rights and distribution quantity dictated by the “Law of the River,” a legal body set up specifically for the distribution of Colorado River water. Northern regions of Arizona rely on the Colorado River as their main source of water, which is distributed through the Central Arizona Project (CAP), the largest aqueduct system ever constructed in the United States (5). Phoenix sees very little of this water however.

95% of Phoenix’s water supply comes from the 17.2% of water supplied through lakes, streams and other surface water not reliant on the Colorado River, with the remaining 5% coming from city owned wells (7). This water is stored in storage reservoirs and distributed by complex delivery systems throughout the state (1). The main source of Phoenix’s water supply is dependant on water from the Salt, Verde, and Gila Rivers (2).

And in addition... Arizona produces a net EXCESS of electricity and in fact SELLS electricity to California.

[Odin2005]

10. Let them try. These morons will come groveling back.

[savalez]

11. The US should let it secede, then invade it. LOL.

[Hugabear]

26. Better yet, let Mexico invade it

Although more likely is the drug cartels would swoop in

[barbiegeek]

27. That is hilarious in a twisted way

[LeftinOH]

12. Maybe Mexico can get their piece of the Gadsen purchase back. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. I don't think Mexico wants them back

[rucky]

35. It would make for some awesome irony, though. n/t

[Horse with no Name]

14. What I would rather see

is the good citizens of the state to run these morans out on a rail.

Arizona has not always been conservative.

[BlueJac]

16. Fucking nut jobs in that altered state........

I wish it could be so and be done with them fools.

[newtothegame]

17. This makes sense. If the law or reg is outside federal scope, why can't a state nullify it?

What's the hubbub here? Am I missing something? :shrug:

[Recursion]

21. Because they think "outside of Federal Scope" is anything they don't like

Now, as a realistic point, they probably can. That is, the Fed's answer will be to cut off all money until AZ cries uncle rather than challenging the legality of this.

[S_E_Fudd]

36. The supreme court is the arbiter of the constitutionality of federal law...

Not the individual states.

If a state believed a law in unconstitutional they have standing t sue, but they do not have the right to nullify it within their borders until a decision has been made by the federal judiciary. This was settled 180 years ago

[Rex]

20. Fine. I live in Texas and sure as shit they will be following along

with Florida. I swear these southern states have lost their collective minds! It is because of 2000, everything went to shit 10 years ago and still is there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Pearce is aware that the last time this was tried

this is what happened right?







Oh wait he thinks this is just this...



And why he thinks it was so damn romantic...

[blueamy66]

28. Oh God.

What the hell is next for my state?

[roamer65]

29. They cannot do it.

The rulings by this committee will be found "unconstitutional" by the federal courts. State laws cannot supercede federal laws. Secession? They will find federal troops in their streets.

[AsahinaKimi]

30. Maybe the federal government will sign a bill

That says they don't have to give them federal funds, unofficially. (And maybe the NFL, NHL, NBA and Major League baseball will have to leave the state.)

[barbiegeek]

33. Throw their senators & house reps out of Washington

[barbiegeek]

32. No McCain in the Senate. How many House Rep seats would they lose

I hope AZ passes & the Representative & Senators get sent home--They can't vote

[lonestarnot]

39. Is Mr. President going to send in the troops to save those of us who didn't vote for the nutfuckers

defacto wannabe gov russell hitler pearce et. al?

[Leithan]

40. Why not make it official, Jan?

You could join Rick Perry and the new GOP governor in New Mexico and form your very own Republic of Douchebagistan.

[Horse with no Name]

42. I think New Mexico is still salvageable

Arizona? Not sure.

[RegieRocker]

41. Will never happen.