Arizona seeking pacts with other states to defy federal government

[peejay 327]

Arizona seeking pacts with other states to defy federal government

by Ginger Rough - Mar. 9, 2011 12:00 AM

The Arizona Republic

Arizona lawmakers are working to create alliances with other states on controversial issues such as health care, immigration and firearms regulation in a growing effort to challenge the authority of the federal government.

The push to form interstate compacts, which have the power to supersede existing federal law if approved by Congress, is part of a broader effort at the Arizona Capitol to promote states' rights.

Lawmakers have introduced bills that seek to limit congressional spending and federal authority on issues from elections to environmental inspections, and Gov. Jan Brewer lists federalism as one of her top priority initiatives this term.

So far this session, Republican legislators have introduced more than a dozen bills that propose to create compacts, about three times as many as lawmakers introduced in each of the past two or three years. Among them are measures to allow participating states to build a border fence, regulate endangered species without federal interference and set up their own health-care programs.

Most of the bills are working their way through the legislative process.

Even if the House and Senate pass the measures and the governor signs them, Congress would still have to approve them - and other states would have to pass similar legislation.

Critics question the point of the bills and the motivation of the lawmakers promoting them.

"Right now, Arizona is the epicenter for a lot of - and I am trying to be neutral here -innovative strategies for voicing displeasure with federal law," said Greg Magarian, a constitutional-law expert at Washington University in St. Louis. "I have to believe the primary motivation here is political. You pass this and then essentially dare Congress to invalidate it."

Magarian said that it is unlikely that Congress would be willing to sign off on compacts that would essentially give the states a broad range of powers.

"You can't just snap your fingers and make federal law go away," he said.

How it works

The power to form interstate compacts, which are essentially contractual agreements or treaties between participating states, comes from Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

The "Compact Clause" essentially prohibits states from banding together and issuing their own currency, keeping troops and engaging in certain other activities without the consent of Congress. But, in recent decades, states have used the clause to create agreements to take control of a host of issues not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, such as water regulation, waste disposal or power use.

Nick Dranias, director for the center of constitutional government at the Goldwater Institute, said there are about 200 interstate compacts throughout the country, with the average state participating in about 25 agreements. Arizona, for example, is part of the Colorado River Compact, a 1922 agreement among seven Western states that regulates use of the river's water.

The new push to use compacts, however, is as a means to directly challenge the authority of the federal government. Proponents of states' rights believe the federal government has, in recent years, overstepped its boundaries by suing Arizona over its immigration law and decreeing that all individuals must carry health insurance.

They typically turn to the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as their legal basis for challenging the federal government. It states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Compacts are a way of returning control over those issues not specifically delegated to the federal government back to the states, said Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, chairwoman of the Senate's Border Security, Federalism and States Sovereignty Committee.

Allen, the primary sponsor or co-sponsor on several of the compact efforts, said she introduced the bills because "the proper balance" needs to be restored between the states and the federal government.

"The states aren't able to do anything anymore," she said. "We aren't able to do the things we need to do for our citizens."

Arizona's efforts

Two of the measures introduced in this year's session are slated to have hearings in committee today.

The House Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee is expected to discuss Senate Bill 1406, which authorizes the governor to enter an interstate compact to build and maintain a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

And the House Health and Human Affairs Committee is expected to hear SB 1592, the health-care compact bill. It proposes an interstate alliance in which states would be responsible for managing and regulating health care within their own borders.

The Senate has passed other bills, including measures to regulate the Mexican gray wolf, but the House still needs to hold committee hearings.

Allen and other lawmakers said they have been in contact with or are working with other states to try to drum up interest in the agreements.

But some measures are having trouble gaining traction in other legislatures.

The compact that has the most momentum is the one that seeks to challenge the new federal health-care law, Dranias and others say.

Seven states, including Arizona, have introduced legislation to regulate their own health care.

The compact would give member states authority to set up health plans and requirements as they sees fit. If participating states received congressional approval for the compact, constitutional experts believe it would supersede requirements in the recently passed federal health-care bill, including a mandate that every individual have health insurance.

Dranias said he believes the compacts could be a powerful mechanism for returning some powers to the states. "This allows states to combine forces to reduce the size and scope and intrusiveness of the federal government."

Compact bills

Several bills in the Legislature would create compacts with other states. Among them:

• Senate Bill 1406: Authorizes the governor to enter into an interstate compact for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a fence along the Arizona-Mexico border.

• Senate Bill 1308: Seeks permission from Congress to set up a compact in which states can create separate birth certificates for children who meet a new definition of a citizen and those who do not. A companion measure, Senate Bill 1309, creates a new definition of citizen, defining children as citizens of Arizona and the U.S. if at least one of their parents was either a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent U.S. resident.

• Senate Bill 1391: Creates an agreement among participating states to enact laws that protect and guarantee their residents' right to own a firearm and not be regulated by the federal government.

• Senate Bill 1392: Gives Arizona and other participating states the right to regulate and manage the Mexican gray wolf, a responsibility currently delegated to the federal government.

• Senate Bill 1592: Sets up a compact to allow states to set up their own health-care plans and systems and gives states authority to regulate health care as they see fit.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/03/09/20110309arizona-lawmakers-defy-federal-government.html

[Zero Sum 305]

and I am trying to be neutral here

When faced with people that forget that the States Rights argument failed miserably, its kind of hard.

That lack of historical honesty, and political discontinuity with the same Constitution they swear to uphold as civil servants, goes to show that some people are never willing to work for the common good.

Do things for their State? Go for it.

Act like a conspiring toddler?

[peejay 327]

When faced with people that forget that the States Rights argument failed miserably, its kind of hard.

That lack of historical honesty, and political discontinuity with the same Constitution they swear to uphold as civil servants, goes to show that some people are never willing to work for the common good.

Do things for their State? Go for it.

Act like a conspiring toddler?

How is it for the common good when the feds refuse to enforce its own laws and harms states by doing so? And I am referring to our unsecured southern border with Mexico and the associated problems from that which disproportionally negatively impacts border states such as TX and AZ. Why should they take malfeasance from the fed without a whimper? Ditto for other issues as well.

As far as the states rights question being settled again by civil war....keep dreaming.

[Zero Sum 305]

How is it for the common good when the feds refuse to enforce its own laws and harms states by doing so? And I am referring to our unsecured southern border with Mexico and the associated problems from that which disproportionally negatively impacts border states such as TX and AZ. Why should they take malfeasance from the fed without a whimper? Ditto for other issues as well.

As far as the states rights question being settled again by civil war....keep dreaming.

Agreement pretty much with the actual issue you just wrote there, although if you cut out the melodrama things could actually get done. Hopefully that defying of the Feds was also a plan under GOP administrations in Washington, because deportations right now have been much more than under previous presidents. Not that I'm blaming you for anything, but anger gets you only so far.

Anger and states rights... hand in hand for some odd reason. I apologize for asking that crowd to buy a bridge.

[^_^ 5,021]

They will stop talking about states rights once that black dude isn't President anymore. Once sanity is restored to their universe, this will all go away.

[Zero Sum 305]

They will stop talking about states rights once that black dude isn't President anymore. Once sanity is restored to their universe, this will all go away.

Can sanity describe that universe though? I see many instances where a State can and should regulate itself, but letting go that much so as to have a conglomerate of disparate and completely contradictory practices seems incredibly retarded, as it always has to the more nationally-oriented.

[^_^ 5,021]

Can sanity describe that universe though? I see many instances where a State can and should regulate itself, but letting go that much so as to have a conglomerate of disparate and completely contradictory practices seems incredibly retarded, as it always has to the more nationally-oriented.

They just went apeshit when the homeboy with the foreign sounding name became President. Once we're back to having whitey in the whitehouse they will calm down, knowing that everything is as it should be.

[Zero Sum 305]

That homeboy better not try to play it cool either.

[peejay 327]

They just went apeshit when the homeboy with the foreign sounding name became President. Once we're back to having whitey in the whitehouse they will calm down, knowing that everything is as it should be.

AJ...back at whining about whitey again? Did some white guy give you dirty looks again or what? Your albophobia is showing.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

There's no denyings (well except on the extreme left) that the Federal Government has gotten way too big and the states have lost a lot of their ability to manage local affairs without federal involvement.

The funny part being, any state that REALLY wanted to, could up and bar Federal laws, stop sending money to the feds, and allow businesses/individuals to do the same.

What would the Feds be able to do? 'sanction' them? Doubtful.

Tell me a President that would have the balls to activate our military on domestic soil to overtake a state that would decide to do such a thing?

[Zero Sum 305]

He should've used 'some' instead of 'they' to be more exact. And I'm sure the defensive reflex would still kick in.