Arizona nullification ballot initiative.

The states are restive.  If enacted into law this nullification attempt would be struck down by the federal courts.  If pressed to SCOTUS  level the result might be interesting.  pl

http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=108430

Comments

[JohnH]

The other initiative in the article proposes an Egyptian-style run-off. Top two vote getters in the primary face off in the general.

The rationale? "Supporters say the new system would foster election of candidates more willing to work cooperatively with each other." Yeah, right! Like Morsi and Shafiq!

Somebody must have put something into the Colorado River water...

[Tyler]

I'd say its more to allow third party candidates to run, myself.

[Tyler]

Sir,

I imagine that SCOTUS will rule against it all the same. The question is if they rule against it, and Arizona tells them 'You've made your ruling. Now you can try to enforce it", to paraphrase Jackson.

[HankP]

I doubt it would be interesting if it got as high as the Supreme Court, because they'd smack it down so fast it would make your head spin. They'd never allow a direct attack on their power to decide what's constitutional and unconstitutional.

As far as the primary system, it's very similar to what we have here in Washington State. If the parties don't like it they should either pay for their own primaries or hold a state convention.

[Alba Etie]

Tyler
If I can book some more cash runs -- I 'll send another money order to Libertieran Nominee Gary Johnson . Btw Nominee Johnson & I respectfully disagree with you ; we both think we should defund the cartels of at least one revenue stream by decriminalizing drugs .

[Tyler]

How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?

Not that I disagree with your interpretation, but the Beltway saying 'fuck you we know what's good for you' yet again isn't going to help resolve a mess that started by DC saying it in the first place.

[Tyler]

Thats fine. You are entitled to your opinion, which I do not think you are making lightly.

[HankP]

Oh, the Supremes would have plenty of support. The whole military-industrial-communications complex depends on it.

Reality is a funny thing. You can legislate against it, but it winds up winning in the end. When I see business owners (and more importantly corporate managers) going to jail for hiring illegals I'll know the country is serious about changing the status quo. Until that happens all I see is a lot of bloviating and crypto-racism.

[Tyler]

Yeah, I remember how that entire military industrial juggernaut fared against the Afghanis. Turned Afghanistan into Ohio, didn't it?

As an aside, when the Democrats start respecting the rule of law and stop baying about 'crytoracism' whenever someone tries to do something about illegal immigration, then I'll know the status quo has changed. Until then, its just more hispandering and amnesties as DC doubles down on 'fuck you, we know what's good for you'.

[HankP]

You seem to believe that state governments are by definition less tyrannical than the federal government. I've never seen any evidence in support of that conclusion and much to suggest that it isn't true.

[turcopolier]

Hank P

"You seem to believe that state governments are by definition less tyrannical than the federal government."

Yes, it is a truism in American political thought that the closer a government is to the people and the more vulnerable it is to local action, the more responsive it is to popular demands.

You have seen what, exactly? Is this about segregation" pl

[Tyler]

No sorry, I think you have it the other way around. You seem to be under the impression that the 10th amendment is just a suggestion.

The closer you get to the electorate, the harder it is to be a tyrant. Arizona is not ordering the assassination of US citizens by fiat, for example.

[HankP]

Yes, segregation and the battle against it in the 60s, but also (at least in my state) how tax and environmental laws are crafted to advantage large, politically connected businesses. I see reports from all over the country about how local police forces are increasingly militarized and use SWAT tactics against suspects. I see reports of certain states repeatedly trying to give one religion influence above others. Corruption, politicized spending, politically motivated zoning laws, etc. Mayor Bloomberg is a whole category unto himself, although usually involving trivial issues like the size of soda bottles.

Remember that we now have 22 states that are larger than the entire US was in 1800, and they have governments that dwarf the size of the federal government in 1800. Some of that is to be expected, the world is a far more complex place than it was back then. But I still feel that the truism you cite is just simply not applicable in the contemporary US. I see far less press coverage of state issues than federal issues in the media (added to the fact that the press does a lousy job of covering political issues at all levels), without press exposure abuse is far easier and more profitable.

[HankP]

See my reply to Col. Lang, I just don't believe that state governments are any less tyrannical than the feds in our society.

[turcopolier]

Hank P

You do realize that the federal government inspires and funds all that militarization of local police? You don't see corruption at the federal level? The country is bigger than it was in 1800? That id even more reason to want a weaker central government. The federal apparatus is now all pervasive. you like that? pl

[HankP]

The feds did make all that surplus equipment available, but I don't recall any directives from them that forced or even encouraged the military approach to law enforcement. That seems to be states and localities not willing to draw lines around what the police wanted.

Of course I see corruption at the federal level. I just don't see that it's much different than at the state level (for one thing it takes a lot less money to buy off a state legislator as opposed to a congressman or senator). The big difference is that the feds at least have a small army of people monitoring what they do. I don't see that at the state or local level. Newspapers used to have dedicated correspondents at the state house to report in detail on legislative sessions. At least in Washington State I don't see that anymore. Local news is mostly feel good stories about local kids or scary stories about crime. Little to no state or local political coverage outside of scandals.

I don't particularly care for a "strong" government, but if things don't get resolved locally than there will be a big political push to have it dealt with by the feds. I don't see that changing any time soon. Petitions for grievances tend to go upward, not downward.

[Fred]

The US Population in 1800 was 5.3 million. NYC alone has 8.3 million people today. The city wasn't representative of the general US population then and certainly isn't now.

[turcopolier]

Hank P

"Petitions for grievances tend to go upward, not downward" You send such petitions to Washington DC? The federal capital is a self-absorbed closed systtem,. I live ten miles from it. I don't know anything about Washington State government, but I would not expect anything from the US Government that responds to petitions from below. The US Government responds to lobbying, media obsessions and donors for electioneering. pl

[Tyler]

Segregation was (again) northern liberals sticking thier nose into an issue that offended thier moral hearts, only to shove thier kids into exclusive schools when they saw the results of 'integration'. The Supreme Court reversed nearly 200 years of precedent in Brown v Board of Education in order to continue to be invited to the right cocktail parties.

Your arguments on the size of the individual states is more of an argument of disunion. If California wishes to bankrupt itself in order to fulfill some abstract sense of 'social justice', then let it reap the whirlwind. Instead the Ninth Circus rewrites law as it sees fit on the most inane of juducial principals. Meanwhile scolds from the Beltway and the Cocktail Crowd who have never visited the border insist that Arizona's outrage comes from the 'evils' of racism, nativism, and invoke everything from Jim Crow to the Holocaust.

If the Northeast and the coastal elites want the illegal immigration and everything that comes with it, then they are welcome to it. Let us see how eager they are to welcome 'undocumented border crossers' when the social ills that accompany 'authentic' Mexican food arrive as well.

Of course, the elites may, as they shove thier children into exclusive schools and gated communities (remember, diversity is for thee, but not for me), but hey, we tried to warn thier middle class.

[HankP]

Here's a simple question - who promises more when they run for office, state representatives or US representatives?

[confuisedpüonderer]

The issue of militarization of police generally is why I objected in that other thread to the Border Patrol wearing military style uniforms.

They may work out in the open field and while military gear most of the time is rugged and practical, and economical to purchase, they look like soldiers either way.

IMO looks reflect as much as they shape attitudes. There is no compelling reason that rugged and practical must necessarily mean looking like the US military in Iraq or Afghanistan (from MRAP vehicle to body armour and those sunglasses).

Now, coming to think of that, the US-Mexican border appears to me to be a place where the US may actually have a large enough stake in to persist long enough for a COIN-ish effort to succeed. It wouldn't need to be a military effort. The Border Patrol could well do that. They know the countryside, speak the languages, are familiar with the culture, familiar with the people. Just a thought.

[HankP]

Sorry, apologetics for racism and Jim Crow don't work on me. Segregation was an abomination for anyone with any sense of morality. I don't care if northern (and western) liberals forced it through because of offended their sense of morality or because they were bored and had nothing else to do, it had to be done and anyone who objects to it really has nothing to say on race, morality or much of anything else.

Beyond that, you've managed to miss every point I made. The cite about the size of states was to reinforce my point that there is no difference between the tyranny of the feds and the states in current US society.

BTW, my daughter went to public high school with a lot of Hispanics. I never questioned their legal status, and I think her education was better because of her exposure to them and their culture. So I guess I'm not an elitist by your definition. It's funny how meeting people and interacting with them tends to turn them into human beings rather than symbols.

[turcopolier]

Hank P

Your level of sanctimony and self-righteous self-congratulation is impressive. Bless you. pl

[Fred]

Tyler, I think Brown v Board of Education was a bit more complicated than you state, however I agree with your final point on elites segregating their own children, in fact they segregate themselves with gated communities (which contain more than just 'elites' now).

[HankP]

Um, thanks, I guess. I don't really think that being against Jim Crow makes me any kind of moral exemplar. Same with having different views about immigration than "deport them all".