This gentleman, like Michelle Bachmann seems not to understand the Constitution. He has introduced a bill proposing to decide which Federal laws Arizona will choose to follow. The 10th Amendment reads as follows: Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. He seems to have missed that if one does not like a Federal bill,. there is recourse in the Justice system up to the Supreme Court, but not at the whim of state's own electorate, panels, or committees..
I cannot but wonder what part of United in United States this man misses. Just because the media puts on people who spout opinions and fantasies, paranoid and otherwise, do people really think they run the country? The power of the individual is expected to follow a chain of command. Contact your Senator and Representative who was elected to represent you...though that seems not to be the way some people in Congress behave.
3 comments:
I think what State Sen. Russell Pearce is referring to is state nullification, the principle that states should refuse to enforce any law that exceeds constitutional authority. In fact, Thomas Jefferson wrote that states were duty bound to not enforce unconstitutional laws. During the 19th century, northern states such as Wisconsin refused to enforce the fugitive slave act on constitutional grounds.
Dr. Thomas Woods has written a book on nullification; see
http://www.tomwoods.com
For a free chapter from the book "Nullification", see:
http://www.nullificationfreechapter.com
This page also has the video "Interview with a Zombie", where Dr. Woods parodies the book tour interviews he's done for "Nullification".
Finally, in answer to your question "do people really think they run the country?", I would like to point you to the preamble of the constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Frank, you describe something quite different from the way it was presented by the media. If I have mistaken Pearce's intent, it would make me very happy...however, my sense from his site makes me think he believes his powers greater than they are by his position. As for the Constitution, I reread it quite thoroughly before I wrote the blog. It is remarkably simple and all encompassing...witness the relatively few amendments required over the years. In fact, one amendment was simply a repeal of a previous amendment by an overly zealous few on temperance
I'm glad you've read the constitution. More American citizens, especially lawmakers, should do so. It is relatively short, written in plain language, and sets the ground rules for our democracy.
As much as we may disagree with prohibition, there is reason to welcome the 18th amendment. At the time, they recognized that prohibition would regulate intra-state commerce, a power not granted by the constitution. Hence they felt an obligation to amend the constitution to bring about prohibition. It is a shame that the war on drugs was waged without any concerns about the constitutionality of it.
Post a Comment