Maricopa GOP Votes Down Medicaid Expansion in Arizona

March, 2013

A RESOLUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE GUIDANCE COMMITTEE (EGC) OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE (MCRC) MARICOPA COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA

IN OPPOSITION TO

THE ARIZONA GOVERNOR’S PROPOSED EXPANSION OF MEDICAID (AHCCCS) IN SUPPORT OF OBAMACARE

WHEREAS, Arizona voters clearly expressed their will to reject implementation of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the individual mandate by amending the Arizona Constitution in 2010 via the Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, Proposition 106; and

WHEREAS, the “circuit breaker” clause is insufficient to prevent out of control escalation of enrollment and the long term costs will cause severe financial hardship on Arizona’s budget; and

WHEREAS, the “assessment” on hospitals is actually a tax and a disingenuous attempt to subvert Arizona’s Constitution and legislative process requiring tax increases receive supermajority approval in the legislature; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court ruled that each State may reject the expansion of Medicaid and Insurance Exchanges, the two cornerstones of Obamacare, without which it collapses; and

WHEREAS, the best method to honor Arizona voters’ wishes to reject Obamacare is for each State to refuse implementation and allow Obamacare to fail; and

WHEREAS, supporting a government takeover of Arizona’s health care system, even to secure large amounts of federal funds, does not reflect the values of the Republican Party or the interests of the taxpayers of Arizona.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Executive Guidance Committee of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, Maricopa County, State of Arizona, does affirm and declare our opposition to the Governor’s plan to expand Medicaid; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Executive Guidance Committee of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, Maricopa County, State of Arizona, demands that the Arizona State Legislators uphold the rule of law set forth by Proposition 108 requiring a supermajority vote in this matter; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Executive Guidance Committee of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, Maricopa County, State of Arizona, demands that the Arizona State Legislators stand with the people of Arizona in opposition to the Governor’s plan to expand Medicaid by defeating any bill to such ends.

Author: Eric Morgan, Chairman, LD22 Republican Committee

PASSED & APPROVED this 7th day of March 2013, by a vote of 26 (ayes) to 2 (nays) to 0 (abstentions) of the Executive Guidance Committee of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, Maricopa County, State of Arizona.

MARICOPA COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

MARICOPA COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA:

A. J. LaFaro

________________________________________

by: A. J. LaFaro, Chairman

Maricopa County Republican Committee

[Download Resolution]

Open letter from Nick Dranias, Compact for America Balanced Budget Amendment, Goldwater Institute 2/2/13 I

I have an eight year old and a six year old. With the latest news of an economy possibly sliding back into recession and projections of the federal debt going to 200% of GDP, I am increasingly fearful of what lies in store for them in ten or twelve years. We have to throttle back the in-creasingly exponential use of debt before we run out of time. 49 states have recognized that the power to borrow must be limited to some extent. It is simply stunning that the federal government stands nearly alone in maintaining unlimited  power to “borrow” resources from voiceless future generations. More than that, the federal government’s lack of constitutional constraint on borrowing presents a looming disaster.

Our national approach to debt reminds me of those movies from Science or Discovery Channel of those beautiful seemingly indestructible suspension bridges that start gyrating because of a     minor tremor or breeze and then because of some failed calculation or screwed up angle in construction, the gyrations build into massive waves, and eventually bring the whole bridge    down. The   Founders did a great job in most respects in designing our Constitution–mixing elements of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy to draw on the strengths of each and counterbalance the flaws of each so that our system could handle a heavy load of misguided majorities or minorities–but they forgot about protecting future generations from current generations’ potential for greed when it comes to easy credit. And they forgot about the unique power debt has to create unsustainable bubbles, not just in the economy, but also in government, because of the natural human incentive to live for the “now” at the expense of the future.

We don’t have much time to correct this tragic system design flaw.

There was a time when principled Americans could unite on common ground to solve common problems. Take for example the Arizona Constitution. Over one hundred years ago it imposed a debt limit, banned subsidies, prohibited the private use of public credit, and barred special privileges and immunities. These reforms represented a historic consensus of the Left, the Right and the Middle of its day. It represented lessons learned after a quarter century of Robber Barons abusing the system to subsidize their risky ventures with taxpayer dollars and credit.

It was good public policy whose time had come. Anyone could see it. Good people united to fix a problem. This story was repeated throughout the American West.

The Compact for America, which has already been introduced in state legislatures across the Nation, presents us with the same opportunity to fix a problem that is many orders of magnitude greater than that faced by Arizona’s founders. With our national debt now in excess of 100% of Gross Domestic Product, and projected to hit 200% soon, itis time to stop pointing fingers at      who is responsible. We owe it to the next generation not to win a debate or an election, but to     stop mortgaging their future. The Compact for America provides a way to fix the debt without requiring anyone to compromise their principles on matters of substantive public policy.

You only have to agree that it is wrong to burden nonvoting future generations with our policy choices.

You only have to agree that, if we have to raise more revenue to pay down the debt we’ve run up,  and then we should do so with a flatter, fairer, less invasive, and more  voluntary tax code.

The Compact for America is designed to find common ground to fix a problem that is almost out     of hand. It is a unique non-partisan effort to organize the states quickly and efficiently around  advancing a powerful Balanced Budget Amendment idea. This Amendment would require Washington to secure approval from a majority of state legislatures for any increase in the      federal debt. It would regulate the use of debt to prevent its abuse by decentralizing Washington’s power  to incur debt. By inviting state legislatures into the role of a national board of directors, the Compact for America would finally give thestates a seat at the table in Washington. At the same time, it would ensure national debt policymakers are more accessible to the people and that any increase in the federal debt reflects a broad national consensus.

Equally important, the Compact for America uses anagreement among the states to generate a  “turn key” approach to originating this powerful Balanced BudgetAmendment. The Compact organizes its member states toapply to Congress for a convention to propose the BBAunder       Article V of the U.S. Constitution; it designates and instructs member state delegates to advance solely the BBA; it specifies the convention location, agenda, committee structure, and rules; it  limits the convention to a single 24 hour session devoted to an up or down vote on the BBA; it prohibits any other agenda and bars every member state from ratifying anything that might be proposed by the convention other than the BBA; and it pre-ratifies the BBA if it is approved by the convention and referred for ratification by Congress. The Compact for America also ensures the convention will be organized only if 38 states join the compact and only if Congress calls the convention in accordance with the Compact. This ensures that nothing happens until both ratification can be achieved without further legislative action and the convention logistics set out  in the Compact obtain the status of both state and federal law and are guaranteed under the Contracts Clause of the  United States Constitution under current U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

In short, with the Compact for America, we finally have a practical, efficient, targeted and undeniably safe vehicle for originating a BBA.

If you have ten minutes to learn more, please watch the overview video at www.compactforamerica.org.

If you have the time or the financial wherewithal to helpsupport this effort, please let me know.

We can stop ObamaCare in Arizona!

AFP Arizona

Dear Arizona Taxpayer:

On behalf of the Goldwater Institute, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the Arizona chapter ofAmericans for Prosperity, and lots of other great organizations, I am asking you to TAKE ACTION to encourage your Legislators to remain strong in resisting the attempts by Governor Jan Brewer and insurance lobbyists to impose an ObamaCare insurance exchange on Arizona families and businesses.

We have REALLY GOOD NEWS for taxpayers and health care freedom fighters: ObamaCare’s government takeover of American health care is vulnerable in the States. Click here to read a short summary of how States can stand against both the ObamaCare exchanges and the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion. Rather than rolling out the welcome mat for ObamaCare, Arizona needs to work for greater health care freedom. For more, read the Goldwater Institute’s briefing paper on alternatives to ObamaCare.

Under the ObamaCare legislation, States are under no obligation to set up exchanges.  Here are three quick reasons for Arizonans to join us in resisting the imposition of a state-funded exchange:

1) By stopping the exchange, we will stop government from using taxpayer dollars to subsidize private insurance companies.

2) By stopping the exchange, we will keep the exchange from reporting to the IRS individuals who have or do not have health insurance — as required by the ObamaCare legislation.

3) By stopping the exchange, we can prevent Arizona businesses from having to pay a $2,000 fine per worker per year and exempt tens of thousands of Arizonans from the individual mandate’s tax of $2,085 per year for a family of four.

We can win this one!  Nine States have already rejected exchanges: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.

Please TAKE ACTION to encourage your Legislators to remain strong in resisting the imposition of an ObamaCare insurance exchange on the state of Arizona.

For Liberty, Tom

Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
www.aztaxpayers.org
tjenney@afphq.org

The First BBA That Will Check and Balance Washington without Brinkmanship

By Nick Dranias, Goldwater Institute

According to the Financial Times, at least one U.S. Senator has declared the nation should jump off the fiscal cliff rather than compromise on a budget that brings the national debt under control.

No wonder why Thomas Jefferson said over two hundred years ago, “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for their reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.”

With unbridled fiscal brinkmanship in Washington, no doubt the federal government deserves to have its credit cards cut up. But we shouldn’t forget that there is a legitimate role for a reasonable level of debt in responsible hands. That’s why the Balanced Budget Amendment advanced by the Compact for America Initiative would do the next best thing: It would require a majority of state legislatures to approve any increase in federal borrowing above an initial debt limit. In other words, 26 state legislatures would be required to cosign on the federal government’s credit card. In addition, to ensure the initial debt limit is respected, the President would be empowered and required to designate spending cuts when 98% of the debt limit is reached. Congress would then be required to override those designations within 30 days with alternative cuts.

Unlike the current national debt brinksmanship, the Compact for America Initiative is designed to force Washington to agree upon a budget that can command a wide national consensus long before the midnight hour arrives. The Compact for America would keep the nation’s credit rating from being held hostage to a game of chicken between the President and Congress. With the states serving as Congress’ fiscal control board, and the buck stopping at the President’s desk, the Compact for America Balanced Budget Amendment Initiative would powerfully check and balance Washington.

This initiative is just the sort of powerful, yet pragmatic reform that could only be originated outside of Washington, D.C. It’s time for the states and the people, led by their Governors, to seize the day.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Financial Times: Don’t Fear the Fiscal Cliff

Compact for America: Home page

U.S. Debt Clock: Home page

When is enough, enough?

A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona
Tuesday, October 30, 2012

When is enough, enough?

As the AP wrote on 10/22/12, “A federal judge refused to order counties to accept new voter registrations without the proof of citizenship mandated by Proposition 200.” U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver rejected arguments by various groups that federal law requires counties to honor a national mail-in voter registration form that does not require applicants to prove they are citizens. Silver said the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act are simply a starting point. She said states are free to enact measures – including requiring proof of citizenship – to make sure those people who sign up to vote are in fact legally qualified to do so.

Monday’s ruling does not end the lawsuits filed by organizations ranging from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the League of Women Voters to the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. It simply denies them the restraining order they sought for immediate relief.

Frustrated with the moves by Democrat then-Governor Janet Napolitano and the U.S. Congress’ efforts to reward illegal immigration by granting aliens licenses, government benefits, amnesty and the right to vote, I wrote Proposition 200 and with the help of wonderful Patriots took our battle to the streets; and gathered well over the needed signatures of 122,612 registered voters to put “Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act” on the 2004 ballot.  In November of 2004 it passed over whelmingly by the voters of Arizona. 

The Arizona Taxpayers and Citizens Protection Act (Prop 200) requires three things:

1.      Proof of citizenship to register to vote.

2.      Photo I.D. When voting.

3.      Proof of eligibility to receive public benefits. 

 Remember the 100,000 illegal alien march?  There chant was “today we march, tomorrow we Vote”.  Prop. 200 gave us standards, so out of 100,000 protest marchers only 126 were able to register to vote.  Apparently this offended the pro illegal alien crowd to actually require some evidence or proof and so they have taken Prop. 200 to court 7 times and always lose. Their effort is a continuous endeavor to gain political control at any cost, even if it means further destruction of the Rule of Law. They continue to invent arguments, while the whole issue is about ‘illegal’ vs. ‘legal’ and giving rights and benefits to people who are not entitled under the Constitution or the laws.  The issue is about corruption by the left in political power, and the cheap labor crowd (Profits over Patriotism as I call them) while the citizens and taxpayers pick up the tab.

 The Illegal Alien Invasion:

  •         10,000 daily crossing our borders, hundreds of thousands of “illegal” aliens marching in our streets demanding “rights.” Motto: “Today we march. Tomorrow we Vote.”
  •         Billions of dollars in costs – Our state health insurance system, AHCCCS, paid out $200 million dollars in 2001, in 2002 the amount increased almost 600% to 1.2 billion! $2.6 billion annually to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens in the state of Arizona
  •         Crime ridden neighborhoods
  •         Over 9,000 killed every single year by illegal aliens. according to a Congressional report
  • $2.6 billion annually in Arizona to educate, medicate and incarcerate
  • Voter fraud

 There is currently a battle raging in our country that will determine whether our nation enforces its immigration laws and secures its borders or becomes a victim of its enemies. We are a nation built upon the “rule of law,” and either we stand up for the principles that our Founding Fathers gave us to ensure lasting liberty, enshrined in a Constitution that protects those liberties, or we destroy all that is sacred and the end result will be a nation that commits suicide.

 I am the author of Proposition 200 in 2004 to stop voter fraud and taxpayers from abuse and fraud, The Arizona’s Legal Workers Act to protect jobs for Americans (upheld by the Supreme Court by a 5 to 3 decision in 2011), and SB1070 in 2010 to remove illegal sanctuary policies and allow law enforcement to enforce our immigration laws, among many others. SB1070 is supported by over 70% of Americans and 11 of the 14 sections were found to be legal, Constitutional and common sense by the Supreme Court.

 I wrote all of these to protect Arizona jobs, taxpayers, the integrity of our elections, including as MVD Director in 1996 NO drivers license if not “legally present” in the United States, I authored Proposition 100, 102, 103 and 300 all passed by 75% of Arizonans in 2006.  It has been a long fight to preserve the rule of law and protect the taxpayers and citizens of this state.

 They say this initiative is divisive? Like its name says, it seeks to protect Arizona taxpayers and citizens. The only divisiveness our initiative could cause might be between those for whom laws matter and those for whom laws don’t matter.

 Our local, state, and federal officials steadfastly refused to protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws. No longer can we sit on the sidelines and be spectators to the destruction of the Rule of Law or the cost to our citizens in crime, billions in dollars, jobs taken from Americans.  Enough is enough.  We must hold our elected and appointed officials accountable. It is up to us to do something about illegal activity and the issues of voter fraud and theft of taxpayer dollars.

 The time has come to fight.

  •         Fight to keep God in the Pledge of Allegiance;
  •         Fight to keep God in our national motto;
  •         Fight to keep the Ten Commandments on public display;
  •         Fight to return prayer to the classrooms;
  •         Fight against abortion;
  •         Fight against pornography;
  •         Fight to secure our borders;
  •         Fight to preserve the rule of law;
  •         Fight to protect the taxpayers from wasteful and unconstitutional spending by the government;
  •         Fight for our God given rights as recognized by our Founding Fathers;
  •         Fight, fight, fight, and (in the words of Winston Churchill) never, never, never, never give up!

 May God bless continue to bless the United States of America

Former President of the Senate Russell Pearce

 
 
Join Our Mailing List

Arizona Should Not ‘Exchange’ Health Care Freedom for Government Control

By Christina Sandefur, Goldwater Institute

This summer’s Supreme Court ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius effectively made states the ultimate guardians of healthcare freedom. Although the Court allowed the federal government to tax individuals who do not obtain government-approved health insurance policies, the decision puts states in a position to prevent the federal takeover of the nation’s healthcare industry.

The most effective way states can defend their citizens’ healthcare freedoms is by refusing to establish state-run health insurance exchanges. The federal healthcare law devised these bureaucracies to facilitate the sale of federally-regulated health insurance. But a state need not set up an exchange – if it declines, the law authorizes the federal government to create one in that state.

Some state policymakers have been sold the false bill of goods that setting up their own exchanges would shield their citizens from federal control. But Washington bureaucrats have the final say even in state exchanges about which doctors and insurance plans can participate, and which benefits must be offered. What’s worse, states that create exchanges must surrender to the federal government sensitive information about their citizens’ healthcare choices.

There are other reasons to decline to set up a health insurance exchange, too. Through the state-run exchanges, private insurance companies will receive billions of dollars in direct taxpayer-funded subsidies. But these subsidies are not doled out in federally-run exchanges if states refuse to participate. Additionally, a state exchange would impose crushing burdens on local businesses. Employers of more than 50 people that do not provide federally-approved health insurance could be forced to pay fines of at least $2,000 per employee per year. But no such penalties exist if a state declines to set up an exchange.

States that set up exchanges are putting their taxpayers on the hook for carrying out these federal mandates. While federal funding for “startup” assistance is available now, after 2014, states will be fully responsible for shouldering the costs running their exchange.

Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, and other states across the country have rejected exchanges. Arizona should join these states in protecting healthcare freedom by declining to set up its own exchange. To learn more about this and other steps states can take to maximize individual choices in healthcare, download the Goldwater Institute’s latest Policy Memo: Next Steps on Health Care Policy.

Christina Sandefur is an attorney with the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Ten Reasons Arizona Must Reject Exchanges

Arizona Republic: A Welcome Mat for Obamacare in Arizona

New York Times: Liking It or Not, States Prepare for Health Law

Victory: Court Decision on Arizona’s Controversial Immigration Law SB 1070

By Former State Senator Karen Johnson

Many people are unhappy about the June 25th Court decision on Arizona’s controversial immigration law (SB1070) and the fact that the Court struck down three out of the four provisions of the bill that had been challenged. Now, if this were a game of tennis or baseball, losing three out of four would be a near defeat. But the ruling on SB1070 is not about sports, and a mere count of the provisions the court affirmed or struck down is not a measure of the success or failure of SB1070. The court’s ruling was, in fact, a great victory. There is no cause for mourning over SB1070.

First, it must be understood that SB1070 was a long, complex piece of legislation that ran for 19 pages and involved 10 sections of statute, some of which had multiple provisions in subsections. Some very important sections of SB1070 were never challenged, such as the sections on human smuggling and employee sanctions. Attempts were made early on to challenge Section 2 (a prohibition against “sanctuary cities”) and Section 5(a) (streetside solicitation by day workers). But these attempts to thwart SB1070 were fended off in early court proceedings before the suit arrived at the Supreme Court. So, of the 10 sections to the bill, a full six of them, many with multiple provisions, were either in effect from the start or had been exonerated by the time the challenge arrived at the doorsteps of the Supreme Court. That means that 60 percent of SB1070 had already been cleared before June 25. What remained for review by the Supreme Court were all of Sections 3 and 6, and a single piece each of Sections 2 and 5. Section 2(b) was upheld in the June 25th ruling, so comes off the table (70 percent of SB1070’s 10 sections now prevailing.). That leaves three items.

Sections 3 and 6 each address a single provision of law, and each were struck down by the Court. But Section 3 isn’t absolutely required in order for the states to arrest and detain illegal immigrants; it was just an additional tool. Nice to have, but not a key provision of SB1070. Section 6 was somewhat redundant because states already have authority for that provision and can work around the court’s decision. So, losing Sections 3 and 6 is not a fatal blow to SB1070.

Lastly, Section 5 had seven different provisions in it, but only one was challenged. The Court struck it down, so a mere one-seventh of Section 5 was invalidated by the June 25th ruling, while the remaining six-sevenths stood. So, in the end, three small provisions that were not terribly crucial were struck down by the court. In contrast, the most significant provision of SB1070, the one which allows police officers making traffic stops to check for residency status, was upheld. This provision was the heart of SB1070. It was by far the most important part of the bill, the most important item under judicial review, and the one to which the Justices gave the most attention during oral arguments. And that section was upheld unanimously by all eight Justices.

Despite SB1070’s near perfect score after two years of attacks by the Left, and despite the puny success of the opponents who were so enraged about the passage of the bill, the media blathered incoherently the day of the decision about how the court “gutted” the bill and overturned nearly all of it. It’s hard to know whether such trash reporting merely reflects the usual incompetence of the mainstream media or is an overt attempt to spin the story to cover up a very public defeat of the radical Left. The anti-American Hispanic groups, the Chamber of Commerce, and various other open borders advocates spent two years and a lot of ink trying to kill SB1070 without success. Considering that the lawsuit against SB1070 was brought by the current administration in Washington, then the administration shares with its Leftist friends the sting of defeat in the face of the court’s ruling. Our current leaders forsook the Constitution long ago. The court ruling on SB1070 is a stern reminder to them that even kings (and presidents) are not above the rule of law.

Among the most satisfying aspects of the June 25th ruling are the comments and support offered in the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia. Scalia voted to uphold all four provisions of SB1070 that were under review, and he expresses an articulate defense of the law in his dissent. “Scalia eviscerates Kennedy’s explanation” for the majority, said Arizona Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs, an attorney who helped to pass SB1070 in 2010 and reviewed the opinion as soon as it appeared on the Court’s website. Basically, reports Biggs, Scalia says that Kennedy’s legal logic was faulty, and that Justice Kennedy misunderstood aspects ofArizona law, a failure which colored his opinion.

While Scalia’s dissent is a minority opinion, it will likely be embraced by patriots because it gives hope to those who love our country and want to protect it from the malicious efforts of those who consistently tear away at the Constitution. Here are a few of Scalia’s comments in his dissent:

“There is no federal law prohibiting the States’ sovereign power to exclude [illegal aliens].”[1]

“… the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers.”[2]

“… the States have the right to protect their borders against foreign nationals, just as they have the right to execute foreign nationals for murder.”[3]

“Arizona is entitled to have ‘its own immigration policy’ ­ including a more rigorous enforcement policy ­ so so long as that does not conflict with federal law.”[4]

“… there is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for … any illegal alien … to remain in Arizona.”[5]

“In my view, the State can go further … and punish them for their unlawful entry and presence in Arizona.”[6]

“The Government complains that state officials might not heed ‘federal priorities’. Indeed they might not, particularly if those priorities include willful blindness or deliberate inattention to the presence of removable aliens in Arizona.”[7]

“The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes ….”[8]

“It is beyond question that a State may make a violation of federal law a violation of state law as well.”[9]

Scalia is scathing in his denunciation of the majority opinion:

“But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of [federal law] that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”[10]

“What I do fear ­ and what Arizona and the States that suppport it fear ­ is that ‘federal policies’ of non-enfforcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration that the Court’s opinion dutifully recites in its prologue but leaves unremedied in its disposition.”[11]

Scalia’s scorn for the majority ruling condenses itself into a question about the Constitutional Convention in 1787: “Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding?”[12]

His answer: “The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.”[13]

Scalia exposes the main obstacle the states face in their struggle to contain illegal immigration: “A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude.”[14]

And he raises the question that needs to be faced by everyone who cares about our freedom:. “Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?”[15]

The answer to that question, of course, is no. Our nation was built on the concept of “popular sovereignty,” meaning that power rests in individuals, not government. We confer certain limited powers on government for the purpose of maintaining an orderly society, not for the purpose of stealing our freedom. The Founders recognized the dangers of an all-powerful, overbearing federal government. They did not leave the states or individual citizens at the mercy of the Executive Branch.

But what is the remedy, then, for a government that refuses to obey the laws and the Constitution and does everything it can to thwart state efforts to do so? Senator Biggs calls the current leaders in Washington “a rogue administration. They are acting outside the scope of their Constitutional authority.”

In times past, the remedy for rogue government was almost always, of necessity, an overthrow. But in a country like ours, that honors the rule of law, revolution isn’t the first option. The answer is (what else?): the rule of law! Even the most clever despot cannot outwit the rule of law. It is probably not possible to overstress the importance of this principle. Dallin H. Oaks, former Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, has said that, “All the blessings enjoyed under the United States Constitution are dependent upon the rule of law …. The rule of law is the basis of liberty.”[16] If that is the case, and I believe it is, then the remedy for a lawless government is to pursue the rule of law vigorously. The answer lies in the state legislatures, which are, after all, supposed to be stronger than the federal government anyway. SB1070 is a state assertion of the rule of law. Many other options exist, such as nullification and rejection of the federal money that makes the states slaves to federal mandates. Are we at the mercy of the Federal Government? Not on your life. Not unless the state legislatures choose to make us so.

The Supreme Court ruling on SB1070 was a step toward reestablishing respect for the rule of law. Our current Chief Executive (who has no respect whatsoever for the rule of law) has already announced that he will oppose efforts by Arizona to implement the provisions of SB1070 and will instruct ICE officials to refuse to cooperate with local law enforcement officers who apprehend illegal aliens. Arizona will need to stand up to such outrageous lawlessness on the part of the federal government.

The commander in chief is setting up a power struggle between the states and Washington, a national staring contest, so to speak, a giant game of Chicken. Whoever blinks first loses. But liberty never backs down. Freedom never loses in the long run. The pages of history are filled with tales of tyrants who went too far.[17] Tyrants always lose. Scalia closes his dissent with a blunt stand on behalf of state sovereignty that should give all states the courage to assert themselves and not back down to the federal government:

“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30 ”are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment. Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in completee compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.”[18]

Hurray for Justice Scalia! Hurray for the Constitution! Hurray for SB1070!

(c) 2012 Karen Johnson – All Rights Reserved

Footnotes:

1. Supreme Court decision on SB1070. Arizona et al v. United States, No. 11-182., Scalia Dissent, p. 7. [Link]
2. Ibid., p. 8. [Link]
3. Ibid., p. 8. [Link]
4. Ibid., p. 12. [Link]
5. Ibid., p. 12. [Link]
6. Ibid., p. 13. [Link]
7. Ibid., p. 13. [Link]
8. Ibid., p. 13. [Link]
9. Ibid., p. 14. [Link]
10. Ibid., p. 21. [Link]
11. Ibid., p. 16. [Link]
12. Ibid., p. 21. [Link]
13. Ibid., p. 22. [Link]
14. Ibid., p. 21 [Link]
15. Ibid., p. 21. [Link]
16. Dallin H. Oaks, former Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, “The Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Ensign, February, 1992.
17. See “The Utah Compact and the Rule of Law,” by Karen Johnson, Sept. 14, 2011.
18. Supreme Court decision on SB1070. Arizona et al v. United States, No. 11-182., Scalia Dissent, p. 22.

Governor Jan Brewer: Repealing ObamaCare Now Up to the American People

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court flies in the face of what most Americans know to be true: ObamaCare is an overreaching and unaffordable assault on states’ rights and individual liberty.

“For defenders of freedom and the free market, the decision to uphold ObamaCare is nothing short of disheartening. The ramifications are sure to be vast, including a new tax on middle class Americans and the erosion of individual liberty as Americans begin to see their health insurance choices dictated by an overbearing federal government.

“Everyone recognizes that the American health care system is not perfect. Costs are too high, and accessibility remains a hurdle for many Americans. But the answer to rising health care costs is not – and will never be – Big Government.  We need real, responsible reform. We need the innovation of states like ours – states that have enacted leading health care models promoting private sector competition, consumer choice, quality coverage and controlling costs. True reform will spring from sovereign states that are free to provide the coverage that best meets the needs of their citizens at a price they can afford. I stand ready to work alongside Congress, state legislators and stakeholders alike in developing sound proposals that enhance choice and competition and bring stability and predictability to our health care marketplace.

“If nothing else, today’s decision officially sets the stakes for the November election. It is now up to the American people to save our country from the fiscal and regulatory nightmare known as ObamaCare. Come November, we must elect a President who understands the economy, represents free enterprise and respects the Constitution and individual liberty.

“If Arizonans are to have access to the health care they need from the provider they choose, ObamaCare must be fully repealed.”

###

Washington Should Let Highway Dollars Make a U-turn and Head Home to States

By Stephen Slivinski

The U.S. Congress has been deadlocked for about three years over re-authorizing the federal highway program. During that time, they have passed temporary extensions of the program. The ninth extension expires at the end of this month.

While Congress idles and lets the program just roll along, year after year, we miss out on debate over whether the current system is working and what the alternatives are.

What happens now is that state governments collect fuel taxes and send the money to the federal government. Then the feds put all the money into a pot and distribute it, mostly by formula, back to the states. The problem is, due to bureaucratic overhead, pork project earmarks, obsessions with funding projects like high-speed rail, and certain demographic and geographic realities, not all the money that a state sends to Washington may come back to pay for road upkeep and construction. And the dollars that do find their way home often have federal strings attached. (Remember the federal 55-mile-per-hour speed limit?)

Arizona has been on the losing end of this for a while. As a “donor” state, we routinely pay more in fuel taxes than we receive back from the federal government.

Rep. Jeff Flake has introduced a bill to require that all states receive back at least 95 percent of the money they pay into the federal highway trust fund. It’s a good step, and one that should be seen as a move toward fundamental reform of the system. But the best thing to do would be to guarantee that each state gets 100% of the fuel tax revenue it collects. And the only way to do that is to eliminate the federal highway system as we know it and instead let states control their highway programs and set their own tax rates and revenue needs accordingly.

As cars become more fuel efficient, how much fuel a driver purchases is becoming a less reliable way to gauge how much driving someone is doing and, subsequently, how much wear and tear they are inflicting on state roads. States need to be able to freely experiment with innovations like open road tolling, which are a better way of aligning the costs and benefits of road use.

That sort of experimentation is limited as long as Washington controls the money.

Stephen Slivinski is senior economist for the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Stateline: While Congress Stalls, States Worry about Highway Funds

Rep. Jeff Flake: Announcement of Passage of Flake Resolution in House

Cato Institute: Liberating the Roads

One Cherokee, One Vote … With Valid ID, Just like Post-Apartheid South Africa Requires

Who knew Cherokees+Elections could be trending hot regarding election integrity this year. The Carter Center, perhaps the most prestigious of the international election monitoring groups, founded by former President Jimmy Carter and former First Lady Rosalynn Carter, with 91 election monitoring experiences in 36 countries, which provides independent expert inspections of the integrity of voter registration and voting protocols around the world, recommended in 1999 that Cherokee voters provide Photo Identification to enhance trust in “the elections process of the Cherokee Nation.”

Cherokees, being dispersed through many states, need a reliable yet simple election protocol to capture as many legitimate blood-line Cherokees as determined by “Blue Card” tribal registration to vote, while barring opportunistic folks who just claim they are Cherokee without any proof, from voting in important Cherokee Nation elections.

Carter Center Postelection Statement on Cherokee National Elections, June 1, 1999
“ATLANTA, GA….Before going into details, we would once again like to congratulate you on your dedication to well-run tribal elections and to the professionalism and unflappability of your staff. If you accomplished nothing else in this election, your voters can feel confident they have a truly secret ballot which should go a long way toward building their trust in the elections process of the Cherokee Nation.

Consistent with what was said in the opening above and …. the Cherokee Nation wishes to continue choosing its leadership through open elections, we suggest the Commission consider the following options:

Eliminate registration entirely. This can be done in several ways: Voting on the basis of tribal registration (blue card) with no permanent voter registration list maintained. Multiple voting in different precincts would be eliminated by checking tribal registration numbers against the master list; Allowing day-of-election registration (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine). The voter simply appears with the blue tribal registration card and a picture ID, casts a ballot and is logged into the system…. Key to this system is a method of ensuring the voter does not vote in several precincts …

Converting the blue card into a permanent ID card would facilitate either of the above options.”

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc254.html

South Africa knows a thing or two about racism and discrimination. What do they require for citizens to vote in their Apartheid-Free democracy?

 SOUTHAFRICA Electoral Act, 73 of 1998  SECTION 38
“Voting procedure(1) A voter may only vote once in an election, and may vote only at the voting station in the voting district for which that voter is registered. (2) A voter is entitled to vote at a voting station — (a) on production of that voter’s identity document to the presiding officer or a voting officer at the voting station; and (b) if that voter’s name is in the certified segment of the voters’ roll for the voting district concerned.
(3) When a voter produces an identity document to a presiding officer or voting officer as required by subsection (2) (a), the presiding officer or voting officer must examine the identity document and determine whether —
Electoral Act 73 of 1998 (ss 36-38) 29
(a) the voter is the person described in that identity document; (b) the voter’s name is in the certified segment of the voters’ roll for the voting district concerned; and (c) that voter has not already voted in the election.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) (a), the presiding officer or voting officer may require that the voter’s fingerprints be taken. (5) If the presiding officer or voting officer is satisfied in respect of all the matters mentioned in subsection (3), that officer must— (a) record that the voter is regarded to have voted in the election; (aA) mark the voter’s identity document in the prescribed manner; [Para. (aA) inserted by s. 11 of Act 34 of 2003.]
(b) mark the hand of the voter in the prescribed manner;”

The Carter Center, noted in their Executive Summary of the October 31, 1991 National Elections in Zambia, this approving observation about the Zambia elections:

 “On October 31, 1991, Zambia elected a new president and 150-member National Assembly in the nation’s first multiparty elections since 1968 … a four-month comprehensive election monitoring effort of the Zambia Voting Observation Team (Z-Vote), the Carter Center of Emory University and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) organized a 40-member international observer delegation for the elections …The delegation’s principal findings … are as follows …”

 E. Voter Cards
The electoral law required only that a prospective voter be listed on the electoral roll and be properly identified. To ensure that only eligible voters cast ballots, however, the Electoral Commission, as in previous elections, promulgated regulations providing additional safeguards: voters were required to produce both national identity and voter registration cards and to have their thumbs marked with indelible ink.”

Well, maybe it’s a Black African continental cultural thang to require Black, Brown and White voters to produce identification to vote … how does voter ID go over in a Hispanic Nation?

Carter Center Postelection Statement on Dominican Republic Elections, May 18, 2000: SUMMARY
“On May 16, the Dominican people successfully exercised their right to vote for their nation’s next president. In a process marked with enthusiasm and dedication, Dominican voters went to the polls in large numbers. This commitment was echoed by fellow citizens serving as election officials, political party delegates and nonpartisan election monitors who brought intelligence, dedication and common sense to the process. The administration of the elections was enhanced by a new, modernized electoral registry that helped safeguard the process and by an unprecedented “verification exercise” to check the voter registry to prevent problems on election day…

A successful election. Though reactions to the results by candidates, parties and the public are still emerging, it appears at this point that the election has been successful overall. The Dominican people demonstrated great enthusiasm, patience and fortitude on May 16, as they went to the polls to cast their votes for a new president. Turnout was high, at about 74 percent, … Independent nonpartisan observers, both national and international, enjoyed full access to every phase of the process … Some widely anticipated problems, such as inconsistencies in the voter registry, did not materialize.

Indeed, the voter registry containing color photos of virtually all voters provided a degree of certitude about the identity of voters that should, as it is perfected in future years, provide a substantial new degree of security and confidence in the electoral process.”

Perhaps Congress can invite former President Jimmy Carter to provide expert testimony to support states voter ID laws because  it appears by their copious years of reporting, that it has been his Carter Center’s decades-long international experience that voters adequately identifying themselves to election officials provides “additional safeguards”, “a substantial degree of security and confidence in the electoral” system, no matter what country, what race, what color, what language.

◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦

Zambia: http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/electionreports/democracy/FinalReportZambia1991.pdf

Zambia http://www.elections.org.za/content/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=989

Carter Center Election monitoring: http://www.cartercenter.org/peace/democracy/index.html

Carter Center Dominican Republic: http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc248.html

Cherokee Nation Election: http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc254.html

SOUTHAFRICA Electoral Act, 73 of 1998

http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/comlaw.htm  links to various African country-by-country  election laws

◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦◊♦