State Sovereignty News from Arizona and Ohio

Two items of interest:

The Washington Times reports that the Arizona House is launching an investigation to determine whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms violated state law by running Operation Fast and Furious. As you may recall that operation consisted of smuggling firearms out of the United States for the purpose of tracing drug dealers. However, the firearms were lost. Some of them were found in the investigation into the killing of border guard Brian Terry at a crossing in Arizona. This is a courageous example of a state exercising its sovereign right to prevent the federal government from harming its people. The investigative committee is scheduled to produce a report by March 30.

Here in Ohio, two State Senators, Larry Obhof (R-Medina) and Keith Faber (R-Celina) have introduced a State Sovereignty Resolution (SCR 24), similar to HCR 11 and SCR 13 in the previous session. These were introduced in early 2010 as part of a widespread movement to let Washington know that the states are sovereign, and to demand that the Constitutional limitations on federal power be observed. HCR 11 died in committee, largely because Democratic Speaker Armond Budish did not want to allow any resolution to challenge the federal government. Its Senate companion, SCR 13, passed the Senate, but also died in House Committee. As longtime readers of this blog know, I strongly supported such resolutions two years ago. I agree with the spirit of the resolution, and have no objections to it passing to add Ohio to the states standing up for itself; but I suggest that the legislature's time would be better spent passing an Honest Money bill and resisting specific federal encroachments on our state's rights.

How to win friends and influence people

Spray paint "Impeach [Arizona Governor Jan] Brewer" and "Deport [Sheriff Joe] Arpaio" on the U.S. and Arizona flags, lay them on the ground, walk on them, and put a toilet seat on the stars of the U.S. flag. I won't show the pictures here, but they are disgusting even to a secessionist. It was reported by KOLD-TV 13 in Phoenix.

While the protesters undoubtedly were reveling in their First Amendment rights, it is yet another example of things people can do, but shouldn't, if they want any support at all. I guess they figure that with our weak border security, reconquista is just a matter of time.

Virtual buckeye to Dave Dickensheets.

Why Arizona should secede, part III

Parts I and II

At the end of June, I suggested that the immigration crisis had reached the point where Arizona should seriously consider, and prepare for, secession from the United States. Nothing in the recent federal appellate court decision has persuaded me to the contrary, nor has the $1,000,000 price the Mexican drug lords allegedly have put on the head of Maricopa County Sherriff Joe Arpaio.

What is interesting now, is that a writer for one (sort of) mainstream medium, The Washington Times, now is advocating secession for Arizona. Columnist Jeffrey Kuhner sees this as

Mr. Obama's decision to sue Arizona is a betrayal of his constitutional oath to secure our porous border. The administration's spin is that the "border has never been more secure." It points to an influx of Border Patrol agents and more resources devoted to enforcement technology. Yet the reality remains: Aliens continue to cross every day. Arizona is home to more than a half-million illegal immigrants. Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of America. Mexican drug lords order contract killings on Arizona sheriffs. Violent crime is pervasive. Instead of helping the people in need of protection, Mr. Obama is in effect siding with the lawbreakers.

The ruling also prevents the state from defending itself; it is unilaterally disarming the people of Arizona in the face of a dangerous enemy. The federal government has shown repeatedly that it is unable and unwilling to secure the border. The Arizona law has the overwhelming support (70 percent) of Arizonans (as well as Americans).*

The President's decision to sue Arizona is striking at the very purpose of government as defined in the preamble to the United States Constitution -- to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." How, in the name of all that is just and holy, does preventing Arizona from protecting its own borders in the face of the federal government's failure to do so, promote any of those objects?

And why, in the name of all that is just and holy, is Ohio doing little or nothing to support Arizona (at least in principle) in this hour of crisis?

* Read the comments. As usual, those who support Arizona give reasoned arguments in their support. Those who support the feds resort to little more than namecalling. Why do the namecallers continue to go on with so little challenge?

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

Why Arizona should secede, part II

Here's part I .

Uh, don't we have this backward?

Photo published in Human Events (and elsewhere) of a sign posted in Arizona about 80 miles from the border with Mexico:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the federal government is supposed to protect us from invasion, not the other way around.

This sign is an attempt to restrict U.S. citizens from open land within the territory of the United States, because the federal government is not fulfilling its responsibility to protect the borders. There is no question that the federal government is capable of protecting the borders. We still have a large military with sophisticated weaponry. The federal government, for reasons difficult to fathom, has chosen to effectively cede a strip of land up to 80 miles wide south of I-8 to Mexico.

This is why Arizonans are angry. It's their land (even where it is owned by the U.S. government).

Arizonans should be starting to give some serious thought to secession.

Taking a stand on illegal immigration

The Dayton Daily News reported yesterday that Butler County Sheriff Richard K. Jones and state Rep. Courtney Combs plan to ask legislators to back an immigration bill similar to Arizona’s.

Last year Rep. Combs (R-Hamilton) introduced a bill that would require employers to check the Social Security numbers of new employees to assure they are in the country legally. Combs said in May 2009 the bill about giving jobs to Americans and taking away a paycheck from illegal immigrants during tough economic times. Sheriff Jones said the bill also is about giving law enforcement more teeth to stop illegal immigrants with fake documents.

As introduced last year, the bill would require all public and private employers to check Social Security numbers against the federal government’s free E-Verify system before hiring someone. Their action comes as protests have erupted in Arizona, since the governor there signed an immigration bill into law last week. The bill makes being an illegal immigrant a state offense. Police can ask suspected illegals for documentation, and arrest them if they don’t have papers.

Opponents say the law will lead to rampant racial profiling and turn Arizona into a police state with provisions that require police to question people about their immigrant status. But supporters of the law, set to take effect in late July or August, say it is necessary to protect Arizonans from a litany of crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

Arizonans have been putting up with illegal immigration on their border with Mexico, which consists straight lines mostly in the middle of desert. Their immigration bill can indeed make their state a police state, and thus is a setback for liberty; but Arizona cannot pass its own laws governing immigration. That power was delegated to the federal government by the Constitution; but Arizona does have the right to protect itself when the feds fail to perform the most basic function of border control.

Ohio shares a water border with Canada, which does not pose the kind of problems states face that are next to Mexico. I am in favor of strict enforcement of immigration laws, but it is not necessary for us to adopt such extreme measures here. A better idea would be for Ohio to pass some immigration enforcement laws that mirror the federal law, but enable county sheriffs and city police to enforce them as state law.

An even better idea would be for Congress to get off of carbon emissions taxes and handouts to Wall Street, and pass some reasonable immigration legislation -- but I suppose I am whistling into the wind.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 7/28

Summer is usually a slow season for State legislatures, once the budget has been adopted. Many States limit the length of the legislative session, so that their legislatures will be adjourned until the following year (Ohio is not so fortunate). For this reason, updates are likely to be infrequent for the rest of the year.

However, the resolution has been prefiled for the next session of the Nebraska Senate. Nebraska is unique in having a unicameral (one house) and nonpartisan legislature. The Omaha World-Herald quotes State Sen. Tony Fulton (NP-Lincoln) in his introduction statement: “My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds. We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”

As we have experienced with our SCR13, critics have wasted no time branding the resolution as racist, in an attempt to link it with the Southern States' Rights movement prior to 1964. Nebraska State Sen. Bill Avery (NP-Lincoln) echoed the concern of Ohio State Sen. Ray Miller when he said, “The history of this movement is rife with racism in the name of states' rights. I'm not saying that the people making the case now are racist, but I don't think Nebraska needs to be getting in bed with these kinds of resolutions.”

The comments to the World-Herald article are revealing. Opponents to the resolution advanced very few points in support of their position (though scarborough's comment was well written), but were quick to attack the introducers as a Republican lackeys, neo-Confederates, racists (because of President Obama), subservient to radio talk-show hosts, hypocrites (because the legislature has accepted Federal money), and beholden to contributors who support the resolution. Attacking the proponents rather than the resolution's substance seems to be a standard leftist procedure for defending Federal power.

I shall address only one of those attacks here. The movement has been around since 1995, during both Democratic and Republican administrations. The present round of resolutions began last year, when Oklahoma State Rep. Charles Key, a Republican, introduced the resolution that has been a model for most of the States this year. Last year, George Bush, another Republican, was President (Oklahoma's resolution was defeated by a tie vote in the Senate last year, but was adopted this year). Arizona, another heavily Republican State, introduced such a resolution in 2002, also during the Bush Administration -- and at a time when President Bush's popularity was quite high.

Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the principal purpose of the resolutions is to attack the Obama Administration.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 6/23

The Arizona House passed HCR 2024 by a vote of 24-2 on June 10. The measure has been sent to the State Senate.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 6/13

Tennessee became the fourth state to enact a State Sovereignty resolution. The State Senate passed HJR 108 June 13 by a vote of 31-0. The House passed in May 26 by a vote of 85-2.

Neighboring Kentucky is gearing up for next year. A third State sovereignty resolution, like both of the others modeled on Oklahoma (BR 54), was prefiled for the 2010 session in the House June 2 by Rep. Stan Lee (R).

The Arizona House passed HCR 2024 June 10, and sent it on to the State Senate.

Many States, unlike Ohio, have limits on the length of their legislative sessions, so I would expect activity to slow down considerably, at least until September.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 3/17

Two States that had introduced resolutions in their House of Representatives have also introduced similar resolutions in their Senate:

Arizona SCR1038 was introduced Feb. 2 by Sen. Randy Gould (R). It is identical to their House Resolution (HCR2024).

Texas SCR39 was introduced Mar. 4 by Sen. Glenn Hegar (R). While generally modeled on Oklahoma's, it has some interesting features, unique to this resolution:

In the clause that states that "Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative functions of the States", in addition to the New York v. United States case (1992) cited in the other resolutions, the Texas Senate has added Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997).

It also includes quotations from both Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton(!) in support of limiting the role of the Federal government; and reinforces the right of individuals to bear arms.

According to the John Birch Society's Tenth Amendment Movement site, Sen. Sam Rohrer's resolution in Pennsylvania has been introduced and numbered HR95, but I am unable to confirm it on the Pennsylvania General Assembly website.