AzBlueMeanie claims in the article Neoconfederate insurrectionists in Arizona Legislature revive discredited ‘nullification’ theory that:
All elected officials in Arizona take the following oath of office:
“I do solemnly swear 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 __________ according to the best of my ability, so help me God.”
And yet the Arizona legislature is populated by Neoconfederate insurrectionists who have violated their oath of office and are actively engaged in acts of domestic insurrection against the United States government.
Let’s get this straight now… AzBluemeanie believes that a state elected official who stands up against what he or she perceives to be a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution has “violated their oath of office and are actively engaged in acts of domestic insurrection against the United States government”. That is a pretty bold statement to make with no evidence to back it up. Nice job!
Let us bring some credentials into the discussion.
Enter Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Mises Institute, who holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and his master’s, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. According to Dr. Woods in his book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century:
“Nullification begins with the axiomatic point that federal law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is void and of no effect. Nullification simply pushes this uncontroversial point a step further: if a law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the federal compact, to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it. It would be foolish and vain to wait for the federal government or a branch thereof to condemn its own law. Nullification provides a shield between the people of a state and an unconstitutional law from the federal government.”
But that is just ‘Tenther’ Nullification Nonsense”, right? The big joke, that the states have any power at all to curb the actions of a federal government it deems has over stepped its bounds.
How about this?
What if the state elected officials decided that the federal law was a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and was not in the best interests of the people of Arizona, and they moved to, and then passed, legislation saying just that?
Wouldn’t that be like the people of the state of Arizona telling the federal government:
“No! We don’t have to abide by this mandate you have directed us to implement because you have violated your oath of office and committed treason against “We The People”, the architects of your power, by proposing, and then passing into law, an unconstitutional concept which was null and void from its inception. The concept of it being void at inception being based on the explicit fact that there is no enumerated authority in the U.S. Constitution, the document which brought you into existence, which grants you the power to create it!”
Now… I think that statement has a little more meat to it, because it is based on fact.
Below is the perfect example of a lost guide… professing to be wise, only to display complete ignorance:
Anyone who has taken a high school civics class could tell you the measure probably wouldn’t stand up in court, as the federal government has supremacy over the states.
The author determines to infer that there is an educated populace that knows this “truth’, identifying them as “Anyone who has taken a high school civics class”
You know, thinking about it, there is a tad bit of accuracy in this statement, considering the lack of education students receive in schools today as a result of the government sanctioned curriculum used for instruction. The type of propaganda being spewed out by instructors who had themselves been feed the same misinformation being used to brainwash our youth today. Look at them. Out they march from the classrooms, lines of robots, programmed to see all around them a world of no absolutes, a post-modernist vision of no truth.
When you are taught that your species had evolved from slime, how could you really find there to be purpose or truth anyhow?
It is this intentionally manufactured mentality that could conjure and then make, an unsubstantiated statement such as this:
as the federal government has supremacy over the states
If AzBlueMeanie had actually read the “supremacy clause”, I mean actually read it, he would see from its very wording that any law passed by the federal government, would have had to have been constitutionally conceived, in order to be the “law of the land”. Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution states:
This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Let’s break this down a bit:
“This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;”
Isn’t this statement relaying that the laws that are created need to be constitutional laws; ones having been created within the confines of the enumerated powers, which were intended to bind the federal government in the “chains of the constitution”?
The section continues;
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land;
Once again, does this wording not imply that the existing treaty, or treaties to be ratified in the future, need to be within the confines of the powers granted to the government, which owes its very existence to the blueprint of its construction? The very instrument created by the people to govern themselves, building into it the safeguards to protect the people from having to endure the rise, and eventual domination, of a tyrannical government, not unlike the one it had just thrown off?
Why would the people create a government which would be granted all authority to create any law it deemed necessary, while allowing no recourse for the people to object? If federal law is supreme in every case, there would never be an unconstitutional law. We might as well pack up the bat and mitts and go home… Sorry, but I don’t think we are ready to leave yet, we have lots more innings to play in this game…
AzBlueMeanie… your argument, if you could call it that, holds no water….