Posted by | February 4, 2011 16:55 | Filed under: Top Stories

by Cate Regan

For those of you who aren’t aware, the United States has a constitution. And that constitution, let’s call it the Constitution of the United States, serves as an outline for the federal government. It bestows upon the three branches their respective powers and responsibilities. So one could argue that the founders, I don’t know, believed that a strong central government was important for the country.

However, the state of Arizona has decided to throw all of that silly legal stuff to the wind. State Senate President Russell Pearce (pictured) introduced a bill that would allow a committee to annul “existing federal statutes, mandates and executive orders.”

In other words, Arizona would basically secede from the Union without filling out the paperwork, explained Arizona Republic columnist E. J. Montini. A committee would “vote by simple majority to nullify” any federal law “that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government.”

Oh dear! Well, apparently Arizona doesn’t understand what the supremacy clause says. Just in case you don’t either, here it is:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

I’m no constitutional scholar, but I can read. And if we are to suggest that the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land, then… we might want to read the Constitution of the United States before we propose bills that clearly are not in conjunction with it.

The Supreme Court explained in the ruling Altria Group v. Good (2008) that the Court has “long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are without effect.” In the case Edgar v. Mite Corporation (1982), the Court stated that “a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute.”

And I’m pretty sure that a state law declaring a federal law null-and-void conflicts with said federal law. But I could be wrong.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2011 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.