PDA

View Full Version : Arizona's Proactive Claim to Sovereignty -- the Freedom to Breathe Act




FrankRep
03-09-2010, 01:11 AM
Arizona state legislators have responded to the rapidly growing constitutional movement that champions states’ rights by introducing the Freedom to Breathe Act in order to protect the state from the unconstitutional actions of the federal government. Ann Shibler


Arizona's Proactive Claim to Sovereignty -- the Freedom to Breathe Act (http://www.jbs.org/us-constitution-blog/6046-arizona-pro-active-claim-to-sovereignty)


Ann Shibler | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
08 March 2010


Arizona state legislators have responded to the rapidly growing constitutional movement that champions states’ rights by introducing the Freedom to Breathe Act in order to protect the state from the unconstitutional actions of the federal government. Primary sponsors for Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1050 that would essentially nullify any federal cap and trade legislation are Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen, Senator Ron Gould and Senator Chuck Gray.

The resolution states that Arizona has, through the legislature the “exclusive authority to regulate anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and substances produced by mechanical or chemical processes, including agricultural operations and waste operations.”

Citing the Tenth Amendment several times, the text of SCR 1050 (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/scr1050p.htm) gives a good history lesson in constitutional principles. In particular, the resolution demonstrates a solid understanding of the Tenth Amendment and enumerated powers, and the intent and meaning of the words at the time of ratification. There is even a statement that describes the relationship of the United States and the people of Arizona as a compact, something far too few understand.

While the federal government’s position is that cap and trade legislation falls under the commerce clause, SCR 1050 concisely explains that it does not:



At the time the United States Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, the Enumerated Powers were not meant or understood to authorize Congress to prohibit any aspect of interstate trade except as necessary and proper to prevent state law from engaging in local protectionism and otherwise solely to ensure that interstate trade occurs smoothly and efficiently among the states.
At the time the United States Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, the Enumerated Powers were meant and understood not to grant Congress general police powers or the power to regulate the purely internal affairs of the states or their people...

At the time the United States Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, the Enumerated Powers were not meant or understood to authorize Congress to regulate wholly intrastate manufacturing or noneconomic activities...


Jeffersonian principles abound in the text of SCR 1050, which should be used as a model for other states’ nullification efforts. Hats off to the state of Arizona for seeking to secure the authority that is rightfully its own under the Constitution over commerce and non-economic activities.

Of course, there are detractors. A blogger at BlogForArizona.com (http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/02/the-coming-week-legislative-edition-2.html) disliked “Arizona’s supremacy over the federal government,” by calling the Freedom to Breathe Act, “We Want To Secede Over Environmental Laws and Regulations Act.” The Sierra Club had a similar re-titling for it, “Another nutty measure brought to you by the Arizona Legislature,” and urged their followers to oppose the attempt to deflect an unconstitutional federal mandate.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 1050 could use a boost from Arizona’s concerned citizens. Arizona residents are urged to email their state legislators (http://www.votervoice.net/Groups/JBS/Advocacy/?IssueID=20947&SiteID=-1) (this link can be used only by residents of Arizona to send emails to their state legislators) in support of SCR 1050, which is intended as a ballot measure. Explaining and educating friends and neighbors as to the importance of such a measure is essential for a state to retain the right to judge for themselves the constitutionality of a federal law, and to refuse to enforce such an unconstitutional federal imposition.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/us-constitution-blog/6046-arizona-pro-active-claim-to-sovereignty

youngbuck
03-09-2010, 01:33 AM
Excellent.

BuddyRey
03-09-2010, 01:52 AM
Great news!

ATruepatriot
03-09-2010, 07:10 AM
And will be suppoting this with a fever.

FrankRep
03-09-2010, 05:06 PM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/US_12-2009/2605-coverstory.jpg

State vs. Federal: The Nullification Movement
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2957-state-vs-federal-the-nullification-movement


Nullification in a Nutshell
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/2971-nullification-in-a-nutshell

Rancher
03-09-2010, 05:17 PM
While Wisconsin wallows in regulation, Arizona declares sovereignty. Nice.