TexasCHLforum.com

PHOENIX -- Voters could get the right to overrule federal laws and mandates under the terms of an initiative filed late Thursday.

The Arizona Constitution already says the federal Constitution "is the supreme law of the land." This measure, if approved in November, it would add language saying that federal document may not be violated by any government -- including the federal government.

More to the point, it would allow Arizonans "to reject any federal action that they determine violates the United States Constitution."

That could occur through a vote of the state House and Senate with consent of the governor.

But that also could occur through a popular vote on a ballot measure, effectively allowing voters to decide which federal laws they feel infringe on Arizona's rights as a sovereign state.

Rex B wrote:Roberts vote is the most disappointing. I can only guess that he was rebelling at being thought of as a predictable conservative vote.

Chief Justice Roberts has given Mitt Romney a key attack: The president is a tax-and-spend liberal bent on expanding government to unprecedented levels. And the presumed Republican nominee knows it: “If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama,” he said from a rooftop in Washington overlooking the Capitol. “What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president.”

mamabearCali wrote:

gdanaher wrote:There are those amongst us whose health is so poor that they, until recently, did not qualify for any kind of health insurance, at any price. I know this to be true because for a long time, one of my children who inherited a bad set of genes from his birth parents, could not find any company to cover him, at any price. Yes, his medical problems are quite expensive. He lucked into a job offering a group policy that accepted preexisting conditions. Not everyone is so lucky. As you critique the health care system, keep in mind that it could be any one of you with similar issues and thank G-d that it isn't you.

There are solutions to hard situations like this. We as a people should find those soutions. However this law will likely not help him in the end. Rationing of care is in this bill, it will be people like him that will be affected most. So is law will deprive me and mine of freedom of choice and will likely not give your son the help he needs.

cbunt1 wrote:

hi-power wrote:

gdanaher wrote:Someone mentioned they were concerned about being told what car to buy. You already are, and have been for years. It's called the gas guzzler tax for lack of the real name and taxes high consumption vehicles. If you can afford that Ferrari, you can afford the tax, right? Really, nothing new. And again, if anyone here really wants to be helpful in November, move to Florida. It looks like they can use the Republican votes.

What!? A gas-guzzler tax does not affect me if choose NOT TO BUY a gas-guzzler. A luxury tax DOES NOT affect me if I choose not to buy a Ferrari. This new law now taxes me if I choose NOT TO participate in it. Liberty is the issue here.

Don't miss the forest looking at the trees. Liberty (or encroachment thereof) cuts both ways. Being taxed (as a behavior modifyer) for making an affirmative choice is as detrimental to liberty and freedom as being taxed for making a choice NOT to engage in certain behavior....whether you prefer to engage in the behavior that is punished with a tax (drinking, smoking, driving a fast car, etc.) or prefer to NOT engage in the regressively taxed behavior (NOT buying health insurance, etc.)

This is the CORE of the old parable of "First the came for the Jews, but I didn't worry because I was a Gentile, then they came for the smokers, but I didn't worry because I don't smoke, then they came for the gun owners, but I didn't worry because I didn't own a gun, then the came for me, and there was no one left to stand up for me..."

gdanaher wrote:Someone mentioned they were concerned about being told what car to buy. You already are, and have been for years. It's called the gas guzzler tax for lack of the real name and taxes high consumption vehicles. If you can afford that Ferrari, you can afford the tax, right? Really, nothing new. And again, if anyone here really wants to be helpful in November, move to Florida. It looks like they can use the Republican votes.

The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).

I adhere to my view that “the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also Lopez, supra, at 584–602 (THOMAS, J., concurring); Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 67–69 (2005) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.” Morrison,
supra, at 627. The Government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity that substantially affects interstate commerce is a case in point.