Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arizona SB1178 Moves Forward: Felony Charges for Federal Agents?
Tenth Amendment Center ^ | 02-21-2011 | Michael Boldin

Posted on 02/21/2011 11:46:46 AM PST by RepublicnotaDemocracy

Late last week, the Arizona Senate passed Senate Bill 1178, the Intrastate Commerce Act. The bill provides that all services performed in the state, and all goods grown or made here for consumption within Arizona “are not subject to the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the several states.”

The vote was 21-8-1

Included in the bill’s language are penalties for federal agents violating the state law – in James Madison’s words, interposition, or “standing between” the federal government and the people of the state.

The bill states that any federal agent or employee who attempts to enforce any federal act, rule or regulation over these activities is guilty of a Class 6 felony. While the measure does not seek jail time, it allows fines of up to $2,000. And any state official that tries to enforce a federal law could face a $500 fine.

Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, who crafted most of the proposals, said it’s time Arizona stood up to the federal government. And she said if arresting some federal officials is what it takes, she’s prepared to do that.

“If we don’t show that we’re serious about this, then how is the federal government going to respect us?” Allen continued. “Instead, they come into our state and they fine us … and fine our businesses and our farmers.”

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: arizona; buttoutfeds; constitution; nullification; statesrights; yayarizona
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last
To: TexasPatriot1
Kinda dissapointed this didn’t come from Texas.

Don't Mess With Arizona.

And all that.

41 posted on 02/21/2011 7:33:16 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will believe in abject nonsense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RepublicnotaDemocracy

Great to hear this.


42 posted on 02/21/2011 7:53:42 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Why the “mixed feelings” ping?

AZ is doing the heavy lifting of the Commerce Clause burden that Congress has imposed! Congress has used and abused the Commerce Clause to the hilt. They are, also, using it to enforce Obamacare, even though in court they are saying it’s a tax.

The Feds should be invited into a state...not be thrust upon them.


43 posted on 02/22/2011 12:38:27 AM PST by dixiechick2000 ("First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tenthirteen
The County Sheriff gets alot of equipment and income from DC in this way.

Better to be poor and standing on your two feet than begging the Federal beast for table scraps. You need to find a new place to post your squeaky little BS.

44 posted on 02/22/2011 1:18:38 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: S.O.S121.500
Does that mean Rick Perry squats to pee??

Yes that is his Indian name "Squats to Pee".

45 posted on 02/22/2011 1:20:15 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RepublicnotaDemocracy; Gilbo_3; hiredhand; Squantos; DoughtyOne; stephenjohnbanker; sickoflibs

“...While the measure does not seek jail time, it allows fines of up to $2,000. And any state official that tries to enforce a federal law could face a $500 fine...”

Weak.

Jail time should be MANDATORY. They should face the SAME punitive measures as they would impose on us for the most minor of infractions.

It’s a start, but it’s too weak.

And it’s already codified in the U.S. Federal Code - see

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_13.html

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

(I know, this is a State level act)

They’re so quick to jam us into “the hole” - feds breaking soveriegn State’s law should face the same damned thing on a State level.


46 posted on 02/22/2011 5:13:54 AM PST by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NFHale; RepublicnotaDemocracy; Gilbo_3; hiredhand; Squantos; DoughtyOne; stephenjohnbanker; Impy
RE :”Late last week, the Arizona Senate passed Senate Bill 1178, the Intrastate Commerce Act. The bill provides that all services performed in the state, and all goods grown or made here for consumption within Arizona “are not subject to the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the several states.

I like it. This is challenging precedents made up by Roosevelt's packed court.

I was talking to a AA liberal here yesterday about WI and the shutdown of schools and fleeing the state. I told him taxpayers do not look kindly to government employees protesting on their dime. His reaction was consistent with his reaction on many issues. That the end, social justice, justifies ANY means. So he thought voters would be sympathetic with the public school teachers. To be honest that is probably what most Maryland voters, who are liberal and tied to the government, think.

47 posted on 02/22/2011 5:34:18 AM PST by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; DakotaGator
At the same time, the Several States need to understand that they do not have the authority to charge their citizens any so-called “use tax” on items purchased outside their states.

The first time I read DakotaGator's post I didn't quite get his point. Thanks Still Thinking for putting it in terms I can understand. Aside from folks living near state borders and going "next door" to get their cigarettes or whatever, it never occurred to me that larger purchases, like a Boeing 747 for example could be subject to "use" or some other relabeled tax. I haven't a clue how that might work.

When relatively small "next door" purchases was the only issue it wasn't THAT big of a deal but I assume with the increase in out-of-state internet sales the states are trying to figure out ways to get their cut. Interesting situation for the states with the possibility that interstate purchases could not be taxed by EITHER state. Shipping costs alone probably eliminate a good deal of this type of interstate commerce. Maybe that's why we see so much free shipping with minimum purchases, etc.

48 posted on 02/22/2011 8:25:40 AM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have only two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000
Why the “mixed feelings” ping?

"INTERstate commerce" is a far larger portion of commerce than INTRAstate commerce. From the food you eat to the clothes you wear, virtually ALL of it involves interstate commerce in one way or another. The federales have inserted themselves into ALL of this activity by simply ignoring the original meaning of "regulating commerce among the several states". It went from coercing the states to make nice with each other to "We are the feral government and we will control EVERYTHING related to commerce, PERIOD." THIS is the much larger problem that is not addressed by these state initiatives re INTRAstate commerce initiatives.

My hope is that these are first steps in a larger strategy to tell the federales to BACK OFF. The next step would be to confine the federales to once again compelling the states to make nice with each other.

49 posted on 02/22/2011 8:54:46 AM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have only two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: phockthis
Wyoming already passed the same thing last year: Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act

AN ACT relating to the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act; establishing a Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act; providing that specified firearms that are manufactured, sold, purchased, possessed and used exclusively within Wyoming shall be exempt from federal regulation, ... Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or both.

50 posted on 02/22/2011 11:54:42 AM PST by Aroostook25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RepublicnotaDemocracy

Class 6 Felony.Does this mean that they would lose the right to own or carry a firearm? I wonder how the feds feel about being disarmed.


51 posted on 02/22/2011 12:46:34 PM PST by johnny reb (When in the course of human events.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
THIS is the much larger problem that is not addressed by these state initiatives re INTRAstate commerce initiatives.

True, but whacking it back from "everything under the sun" to "more than was intended" is a good start.

52 posted on 02/22/2011 6:36:16 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
True, but whacking it back from "everything under the sun" to "more than was intended" is a good start.

I hope so. It's almost as if the States are conceding the point that the regulation of ALL things interstate by the federales is acceptable. It's not of course and I realize that is probably not their intent but it IS in fact the effect. Like you I'm hoping it's just a first step.

53 posted on 02/22/2011 6:57:35 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have only two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Oh...I see your mixed feelings. The Commerce Clause.

That has been used, abused, and hung up wet!

“We are the feral government”

I know what you mean but...typo...fraudian slip...or what? It doesn’t matter...it’s priceless! I love it and it should be entered into the FR Lexicon! lol


54 posted on 02/22/2011 11:52:50 PM PST by dixiechick2000 ("First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000
Ha!!! Feral? I like it.

Making Feral Rat Policy Work By Hijacking the Democratic Process

Obama-constitutional-fight1sm

55 posted on 02/23/2011 12:03:56 AM PST by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: BobP

LOL! Great graphic!

That’s the “feral” gubmint, all right. ;o)


56 posted on 02/23/2011 12:12:38 AM PST by dixiechick2000 ("First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: central_va

You seem confuced. Perhaps a little too much central VA?


57 posted on 02/24/2011 8:07:36 AM PST by tenthirteen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: central_va

You seem confused. Perhaps a little too much central VA?


58 posted on 02/24/2011 8:08:18 AM PST by tenthirteen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Charge inmates for their prison garb, room and board, and charge them additionally for any privileges such as movies or exercise equipment.


59 posted on 03/07/2011 2:30:57 PM PST by ArmyTeach (Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain ... Iowa 61)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson