Surprise: Constitutional Law Professor Lies About the Supremacy Clause.

“The [State] legislature can pass anything it wants,” said Sam Kamin, a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. “The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes that clearly unconstitutional. Where there’s a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme.” “Kamin and other legal experts said such disdain of Obama’s proposals…

Details

Arizona Moving Forward on State-based Health Care Exchange Prohibition

Arizona Representatives Carl SeelSteve SmithAdam KwasmanDavid W. StevensBob ThorpeJudy BurgesBrenda BartonDavid LivingstonDarin MitchellKelly Townsend and Kelli Ward have introduced a bill that would prohibit the federal government from implementing a health care exchange in this state.

HCR2014 would amend Arizona statutes by adding a section on state-based health care exchanges. The text of the bill simply states:

“This state may not establish or administer a state‑based health care exchange.
2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article IV, part 1, section 1, Constitution of Arizona.”

Leading the long list of sponsor’s on this bill is Representative Carl Seel. Being the first representative to prefile a house bill with HB2001 (state health care exchange; prohibition) his urgency to remedy the unconstitutional act was obvious! When I spoke with Representative Seel about the bill, he expressed his outrage for Obamacare. Stating, “it would be the biggest tax increase in recent history.” He then expressed in detail how tyrannical it was. Also, he reaffirmed his devotion for the oath he took to the constitution and he said that he is “duty bound to uphold it.” When asked about Jan Brewer’s recent decision to expand medacaid, he stated, “it’s another federal government program we don’t need to be involved in. The reason why Jan decided to expand is because the federal government pays 90% of the fee.”

Details

Shock: ‘The Progressive Professor’ Opposes Nullification

A very predictable progressive, I might add. Once in a while a progressive, like Jeff Taylor at Jacksonville State, realizes that gigantic, unresponsive bureaucracies that bomb foreign populations at the drop of a hat, just might — might! — not be so progressive. And that the old progressive slogan “small is beautiful” just might apply to the political order as well.

But then there are the Predictable Progressives, who stick to the 3×5 card of allowable opinion, and trot out all the old arguments. Half the time they’re not even arguments. It’s just, “Hey, this is an old idea! That means it’s stupid. Today we’re so much more sophisticated. The modern state has showered the world with so many blessings; what kind of uppity troublemaker could ever want to challenge it?”

Hence the “Progressive Professor,” who teaches at Florida Atlantic University, has a blog post called “Rand Paul Revives Nullification from the Pre-Civil War Years.” He writes:

Details

Arizona – Are They ‘Droned’?

Droned or stoned?

While several states take steps to limit the use of drones, the Grand Canyon State seems intent on spreading the pilotless spy platforms far and wide.

Four Republican members of the Arizona Legislature [Thomas Forese, Jeff Dial, Justin Pierce, and Bob Thorpe] have introduced HCR 2009 touting their State’s qualifications to be a major player in the drone industry.

Of particular note are items:

[2] ……….”pursue the high priority requirements of the United States Department of Defense
[3] ……… “simultaneously ensuring respect and regard for the individual privacy rights of those…”

[6]………” common-day occurrence in which manned and unmanned aircraft fly safely and seamlessly together in national airspace.

One [at least a liberty loving one] would argue that 24/7 surveillance of the American People is not as great an idea as it may appear on the surface.  As an example, someone might suggest

Details

Washington State Considering Health Care Freedom Legislation

Washington state joins four other states currently considering legislation to block implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Ten representatives, led by Rep. Matt Shea, introduced HB1168, known as the Washington state health care freedom act of 2013. The bill would protect Washington citizens from any attempt to force them into any health care system, guaranteeing the right to control their own health care decisions.

A law or rule pertaining to health care shall not directly or indirectly compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.

Provisions in the bill also protect the right of health care providers’ to accept direct payment and block any law that would prohibit the purchase of private health insurance. The legislation concludes with a provision nullifying any federal act in conflict with provisions of the bill, based on the fact that no constitutional power exists authorizing the federal government to administer a health care system.

Any federal law, rule, order, or other act by the federal government violating the provisions of this section is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state, and is considered as null and void and of no effect in this state.

Details

Nullification is a ‘Code Word,’ Says Senator

Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien that Rand Paul’s threat to “nullify” Obama’s executive orders pertaining to guns was a poor choice of words; “nullify” is a “code word,” he says. What’s it a code word for? Kaine won’t say:

It’s a states right argument that gets used in times of great controversy. The President is acting by executive power that is legally conferred on him. And as you pointed out, you went over these executive orders. They’re basic, common sense things.

[He is asked once again to clarify what it is a code word for.] We’ll see what it is. But the notion that we’re going to nullify a presidential action when the President is acting pursuant to law, you know, that’s just kind of this anti-government rhetoric that I’m surprised to hear somebody in government using.

Who knows what any of this is supposed to mean, but this is a fairly common tactic: the implication that the Left speaks honestly and forthrightly, while non-leftists use wicked “code words” by which they secretly convey their sinister intentions to their supporters.

Details

Arizona Firearms Freedom Bill Proposes Jail time for Violations of the 2nd Amendment

Arizona Representatives  Steve Smith, Adam Kwasman, Carl Seel, David W. Stevens, Bob Thorpe have introduced a bill that would prohibit the federal government from regulating “a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within the borders of this state.”

HB 2291 would revise Arizona statutes by adding a section on firearms. The text of the bill simply states:

“A public servant or a federally licensed dealer who sells firearms in this state shall not enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within the borders of this state.”

Also,

“An official, agent or employee of the United States government shall not enforce or attempt to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within the borders of this state.”

Furthermore the bill states:

Details