I went to the “Our America” web site and read about his initiative. To me, Mr. Johnson and the initiative he represents don't have the ring of clarity and consistency I hear when I read or hear something from Ron Paul. Ron Paul is consistent and clear because the US Constitution is always his guide. Every issue is answered by Paul with a reference to some part of the Constitution (much like this web site). Without that, Our America reads more like a political candidate’s issue statements based on his personal views and NOT based on the unchanging words of the US Constitution.

For example, on drugs, Our America believes:

“Marijuana should be regulated and taxed by the federal government (just like tobacco is currently), which would lead to a lower price for the product and eliminate the criminal element from its distribution, much like the repeal of the prohibition of alcohol many decades back.”

Where in the US Constitution does the federal government get the power to regulate and tax marijuana? That doesn’t sound like someone who supports “state rights” and the 10th amendment to me…

His statement about taxes is simply that they “should not be raised.” Not much substance there. His issue statement about the Middle East wars contains no reference to the US Constitution at all.

FWIW, I believe Mr. Johnson's initiative would be greatly helped by a clear and consistent reference to the US Constitution as the source of the answers to all the questions we face. That assumes, of course, that he actually believes in following the original intent of the US Constitution. Reading Our America, it’s hard to reach that conclusion.

States have the 'rights' given to them by the people who founded them and who control them. States do not exist in the real world and are not tangible entities. The citizens of a state agree to a set of rules called a state constitution that controls what the people who work for the state can and cannot do.

Whether the AZ law in question violates the AZ state constitution and its protections of the rights of the citizens of AZ can be determined by the AZ court system. If the people of AZ are not happy with the outcome, they can amend their constitution and/or replace their legislators.

For the purposes of this web site, the issue is whether the federal government has any say in this matter and, if so, how much. So, contrary to your assertion, I submit this AZ law has everything to do with state vs. federal powers.

Here is the real kicker behind the relationship between state and federal government. Even if a state did do something illegal that may not mean the federal government can stop them since they only have the powers granted to them. They may not have the legal power to stop a state even if the state is doing something quite illegal.

We have been doing it the other way around for a long time- where everything is decided on a national level. How’s that working?