On Friday night the Marijuana Policy Project reported:

“Although there are still about 10,000 votes left to be counted, our lead of more than 4,000 votes makes us 100 percent confident in announcing…

Arizona is now the 15th medical marijuana state!

This fall, more than 1.7 million Arizona voters mailed in ballots and turned out to support Proposition 203, a ballot initiative that would end the arrest and imprisonment of patients for following their doctor’s advice. While it seemed as if the initiative had fallen short on election night, it garnered enough support from late mail-in votes and provisional ballots to produce a victory!”

Medical marijuana is controversial, no doubt, especially among social conservatives, of which I am one. But regardless of whether or not one supports the legalization of medical marijuana in one’s own state, or whatever a person’s opinion of its efficacy as a medicine might be, one thing should be uncontroversial:

The Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from interfering with a state’s decision to either allow or prohibit the cultivation, distribution or use of marijuana within its own boundaries (case law involving the Commerce Clause notwithstanding). Under the Constitution, that decision is reserved to the states or the people. The regulation of intrastate commerce, as it pertains to marijuana, is simply outside the scope of federal power. The fact that our overlords in Washington, DC and their minions throughout the union have ignored the Tenth Amendment for decades, is irrelevant.

But medical marijuana isn’t the only issue over which the people of Arizona have invoked their sovereign powers, guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment. They also passed Prop. 106 in order to amended the Arizona State Constitution, which according to Dr. Eric Novack, Chairman of Arizonans for Health Care Freedom, will do two things:

– One, Prop 106 guarantees that all Arizonans have the right NOT to participate in any health care system or plan without facing a penalty, fine, or tax. Put simply, that means no government-mandated insurance.

– Two, Prop 106 will guarantee that all Arizonans have the right to spend their own money to obtain legal health care services. Second opinions; additional medical treatments; life-saving legal drugs [which now includes marijuana for those whose physician prescribes it]: No government bureaucrat should ever be able to tell you that your life and health are not worth it

Kyrsten Sinema, Assistant House Democratic Leader, sees it differently. In fact she asserted earlier this year that Prop. 106 is actually useless. She wrote:

“Prop. 106 is completely useless because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes that laws established by Congress are the supreme law of the land. Through Proposition 106, the state may not tell the federal government what to do.”

Yes, you read that correctly. According to Kyrsten Sinema, federal statutes, not the US Constitution, are the supreme law of the land.

Getting the Supremacy Clause Wrong

As predictable as the sun rising tomorrow in the East, are the arguments that the federal supremacists, opposed to not only Prop. 106, but also those opposed to Prop. 203, will make. At their core, they are essentially identical. They mistakenly assert that federal statutes, rather than the Constitution, are the supreme law of the land. Recall what Kyrsten Sinema wrote:

“..the state may not tell the federal government what to do.”

Prepare yourself for the heavy dose of propaganda you’re about to be subjected to. “States can’t just pick and choose what federal laws they will obey!” and, “federal law trumps state law”, are the sound bites that will be presented to us in a “matter of fact” tone,  over and over again. Someone once said that, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. I won’t name names, but the name of the person who said it rhymes with Lenin. And just like Kyrsten Sinema’s argument against Prop. 106, the “federal marijuana laws haven’t been repealed” arguments that will be made against Prop. 203, are based on the same flawed understanding, or misrepresentation of, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

The Supremacy Clause established the following rule:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

So what part of the Supremacy Clause don’t they understand? Where do Kyrsten Sinema and other federal supremacists get it wrong? For starters, they seem to ignore or gloss over the fact that the Constitution is mentioned in the clause first. Robert G. Natelson, a nationally recognized expert on the framing and adoption of the Constitution, explains in chapter three of his book, The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant:

“The Supremacy Clause thereby described a hierarchy by which state (and federal) judges would prioritize federal and state enactments..The most obvious prescription of the Supremacy Clause was that the Constitution and duly-enacted federal laws and treaties were superior to state constitutions and state laws..The US Constitution was mentioned first—before ‘Laws . . . made in Pursuance thereof’—to indicate that the Constitution was superior to statutes..The Supremacy Clause referred to laws ‘in Pursuance’ of the Constitution but to treaties as ‘made, under the Authority of the United States.’..Thus, state and federal courts were to apply sources of law in the following hierarchy:

Highest: The U.S. Constitution

Next highest: U.S. laws and treaties, duly made within the scope of federal power

Next: State constitutions

Lowest: State laws.

Federal actions taken outside the scope of federal power were not, of course, to be law at all.”

So according to Robert Natelson, state and federal courts were to apply sources of law according to the hierarchy listed above. But what happens when federal courts, even the highest federal court in the land fails to do so? Do the states and the People have any further recourse? Yes we do, and the most appropriate one is called state nullification.

“Unconstitutional Law” is an Oxymoron

Federal actions taken outside the scope of federal power are not laws, they are acts of usurpation. In other words, an unconstitutional federal “law” is no law at all, and the states and their people are not bound to obey them. Whether it’s Prop. 106 (The Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment), or Prop. 203 (The Arizona Medical Marijuana Initiative), Arizona is acting well within the scope of its reserved powers when it enacts such laws.

Arizona is not somehow being insubordinate, rather it is our so called federal government that is refusing to subordinate its actions to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. By interposing itself between the people of Arizona and a federal government gone rouge, the 48th state is simply performing what most states (both northern and southern), properly understood to be their duty for almost the first half of American history. The examples, which have involved a multiplicity of issues, ranging from the protection of free speech in the 1790′s, to preventing the unconstitutional kidnapping of blacks by slave hunters in the 1850′s, they are too numerous to cover here in detail.  But I’ll give you this important example.

When representatives from Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts assembled in 1814 at what is known as the Hartford Convention, in response to the federal government’s unconstitutional conscription plan and other grievances they had, they did not ask the federal government for permission to “opt out” of their conscription plan, neither did they attempt to sue the federal government in federal court, as far as I know.  Rather, they drafted a report and resolutions on their own, without asking permission. They understood that the federal government was their agent, not their master. Let me share with you an excerpt from one of those resolutions adopted by the convention. It reads:

“In case of deliberate, dangerous, and palpable infractions of the Constitution affecting the sovereignty of a State and the liberties of the people, it is not only the right, but the duty of such State to interpose its authority for protection in the manner best calculated to secure that end.”

Get the New Book Today!

We don’t necessarily need a convention, like the one convened in Hartford back in 1814, to halt federal acts of usurpation. Fourteen states have already asserted their sovereignty unilaterally, by legalizing medical marijuana in spite of the Supreme Court’s ruling that they may not do so. So far, no one has been run over by a tank. In fact, the federal government has done almost nothing to oppose them. Now it looks like Arizona will be number fifteen.

So thanks for your opinion, Supreme Court…but we’ll be “the decider” when it comes to what kind of health care system we’ll have in Arizona, or if a certain plant, grown and kept within our state, is to be permitted for medicinal use. And whatever we do decide, know that more of us everyday are waking up to the fact that it is the duty of those in our state government to protect the sovereignty of Arizona and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

EDITOR’S NOTE: As of 11-14-10, Arizona’s elections office has made it official that Proposition 203 has passed.

CLICK HERE – for the Tenth Amendment Center’s legislative tracking page for state marijuana laws

Just when you thought Arizona couldn’t get any more provocative, or push any more of the federal government’s buttons, it looks like America’s 48th state may actually become the 15th state to adopt another very controversial law!

This proposed law, on the other hand, may actually make some people on the Left, as well as the Right, happy for a change. I have my doubts about whether it will make those who put party above principle, or anyone employed by the U.S. Department of Justice happy, however.

While Arizona was getting tons of media attention related to the passage of its high profile immigration enforcement law, (SB 1070), the grassroots activists that were delivering more than 100 boxes of petitions containing 252,000 signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office received little.

But this week, Fox 11 Arizona’s website reported:

“Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s office on Tuesday certified that organizers of the initiative campaign had turned in enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot.”

What measure is he referring to?

The Medical Marijuana Initiative, of course! The initiative, which Arizona voters will soon have a chance to vote into law this November, would do seven things according to the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project’s website:

• Allow terminally and seriously ill patients who find relief from marijuana to use it with their doctors’ approval.
• Protect these seriously ill patients from arrest and prosecution for the simple act of taking their doctor-recommended medicine.
• Permit qualifying patients or their caregivers to legally purchase their medicine from tightly regulated clinics, as they would any other medicine — so they need not purchase it from the criminal market.
• Permit qualifying patients or their caregivers to cultivate their own marijuana for medical use if a regulated medical marijuana clinic is not located within 25 miles of the qualifying patient.
• Create registry identification cards, so that law enforcement officials could easily tell who was a registered patient, and establish penalties for false statements and fraudulent ID cards.
• Allow patients and their caregivers who are arrested to discuss their medical use in court.
• Keep commonsense restrictions on the medical use of marijuana, including prohibitions on public use of marijuana and driving under the influence of marijuana.

The AMMPP, which is a grassroots organization, has been devoted to passing a medical marijuana initiative in Arizona in November 2010. As they explain on their homepage:

“Currently, seriously ill people who use marijuana on the advice of their doctor to treat illnesses such as cancer, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis are subject to arrest and imprisonment, simply for trying to stimulate their appetite or alleviate their pain.”

Objections

People who often dismiss state laws allowing the use of medical marijuana always seem to argue that “federal law trumps state law” and that federal “laws” still prohibit the possession, use, cultivation or distribution of the plant, even for medical purposes.

It’s true that federal “laws” make no exceptions for those who are sick and suffering, and the Feds have claimed universal jurisdiction, even over plants that are grown and consumed by patients in their own home. But I wish more of these critics, (and all Americans for that matter), would take the time to ask the following question:

“Which of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution gives them the authority to prohibit the cultivation or use of marijuana at all, for any reason?”

It’s a fair question, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to it. Michael Boldin, founder of the Los Angeles based Tenth Amendment Center puts it this way:

“An honest reading of the Constitution with an original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers makes it quite clear that the federal government has no constitutional authority to override state laws on marijuana. All three branches of the federal government, however, have interpreted (and re-interpreted) the commerce clause of the Constitution to authorize them to engage in this activity, even though there’s supposedly no ‘legal’ commerce in the plant. At best, these arguments are dubious; at worst an intentional attack on the Constitution and your liberty.”

I know it’s difficult for educated, reasonably intelligent people to understand how cultivating, harvesting and consuming a plant, all on one’s own property, is actually in fact, a form of “interstate commerce”. However, that is only because it defies common sense, which is something the unelected, black robed demi-gods who preside over our federal court system do with ease almost daily. We mere mundanes, on the other hand, lack their special wisdom, which allows them to interpret the words of the Constitution in a more innovative and sophisticated way. Our duty is to stand in awe, bow our heads, wave incense before their judgement seats, and to suppress any impulse we might have to think critically about their interpretations.

Don’t be fooled. As far as medical marijuana is concerned, all marijuana that is produced within a state’s boundaries and stays there, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of that state!

Congressional Commerce Clause Abuse

It’s funny that the same “Commerce Clause”, which has been pervert ed by the federal government to prohibit the medical use of marijuana, was also the same clause that was twisted to justify passing the legislation that gave us Obamacare. Fortunately, Arizona voters will have the opportunity to effectively nullify both Obamacare and the federal prohibition of medical marijuana this November.

Whether you approve of people using it for any reason, medical or otherwise, the fact of the matter is that unless and until the US Constitution is properly amended (the way it had to be in order to enact alcohol prohibition), the federal government has no authority to interfere with seriously ill Arizonans who decide to use marijuana with their state government’s permission.

The last time I checked, I discovered that although the 10th Amendment has been largely ignored by the Feds, it has not not been officially repealed. Just like all health care decisions, a person’s choice to use or not use Medical Marijuana is a sensitive and highly personal decision. It’s a decision that should, at the very most, be decided by we the people, in our own state, not by politicians or unelected bureaucrats and judges in far off Washington, DC!

Like every other state level measure designed to nullify unconstitutional acts of federal usurpation, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Initiative has the potential to be an unstoppable choice if the people of Arizona simply resolve to exercise their constitutional rights, with or without Washington, DC’s permission.

The County Sheriff, America’s Last Hope

But won’t the DEA come in and arrest people who are dispensing medical marijuana and/or even the sick and dying people who use it?

Well, the answer to that question largely depends on whether or not your state officials, especially your elected county sheriff, allows them to get away with doing that.

More and more sheriffs and candidates who are running for the office of sheriff, are boldly coming out and frankly saying that they will not tolerate federal agents who would dare to harass and arrest the innocent people they have sworn to protect.

Bill Hunt, for example, is a candidate for sheriff of Orange County, CA.  He is part of a growing movement of incumbents and candidates seeking the elected office of sheriff who have seen the light.  This great awakening of sheriffs across the country has mostly been the result of the educational efforts of former under cover narcotics officer and two term Graham County, AZ sheriff, Richard Mack.

Here’s an excerpt from a recent interview with Bill Hunt:

Question: “If you are elected sheriff and the DEA came into Orange County (OC) and asked OC Sheriff’s Department to help shut down medical marijuana dispensaries, would you oblige them with support?”

Bill Hunt: “No. I would prevent them, it’s unconstitutional! I’m not an advocate for legalizing marijuana but on tpthe other hand the sheriff is elected to enforce state laws. So, if I’m elected sheriff to this county enforcing state law and I’m using federal law to circumvent state law, then I’m not really being true to my office and my oath of office. The sheriff can prevent the feds from coming in and doing that.”

I can assure you, Bill Hunt is not alone. There are sheriffs already in office, and many more running for office, who agree with him 100%. But even if you don’t live in a county with a sheriff who takes his oath to support and defend the Constitution seriously (give him a copy of Sheriff Mack’s book and start educating him about his oath, or replace him with someone who is committed to keeping it), here is what the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) has to say about the matter that is very optimistic:

“Even within the confines of federal law, states can enact reforms that have the practical effect of removing the fear of patients being arrested and prosecuted under state law — as well as the symbolic effect of pushing the federal government to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana..Federal laws still apply to patients. While the federal government does not have the resources to arrest, try, and incarcerate a significant number of small-scale medical marijuana users and growers, the federal government has raided some large-scale medical marijuana distributors in California. However, because 99 out of 100 marijuana arrests are made at the state or local level, state medical marijuana laws give patients 99% protection.”

The Will Of The People And The Power Of The States

Take a step back and look at the big picture for a moment. What the MPP says about enforcement of the federal laws criminalizing medical marijuana also applies to other unconstitutional federal laws that states might decide to nullify. Some examples are: Obamacare, Cap and Trade, federal regulations on firearms manufactured and kept within state boundaries, the federal plan to ban incandescent light bulbs, or federal regulations that might prohibit the sale and consumption of raw milk. All of these have to actually be enforced by someone.

Get the Book Today!

The truth is that when enough people within a given state begin to form a consensus that certain federal laws forced upon them are unconstitutional and therefore illegitimate, and a majority of their government officials at the state and local level agree with and support them, then the idea that Thomas Jefferson expressed so clearly in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, will be actualized:

Is the Immigration Bill Unconstitutional?

Many “progressive” opponents of the Arizona immigration law are arguing that the law is unconstitutional because foreign affairs is exclusively the province of the federal government.

That foreign affairs is exclusively the province of the federal government is commonly asserted. But it is a myth – at least if one respects the Constitution’s text and original understanding.

Before explaining why, I have to say that a claim that the Constitution reserves powers exclusively for one level of government is an unusual argument for “progressives” to make. In general, of course, the most vocal “progressives” could care less about what responsibilities the Constitution assigns to what levels of government.

It’s not just that they favor the federal government invading the sphere that the Constitution reserves to the states. It’s also that they have repeatedly urged state and local governments to invade the supposedly exclusive sphere of the federal government. Remember all those campaigns for state and local governments to adopt nuclear-freeze resolutions, South Africa boycotts, and nuclear-free zones?

Anyway, let’s move beyond the limitless subject of political hypocrisy to describe just how the Constitution does distribute foreign affairs authority.

First, the Constitution gives the federal government supreme authority over foreign policy. Congress and the President can pre-empt an issue by exercising one or more of their enumerated powers. If Congress dislikes a state action in that realm, Congress can pass a law overriding it.

If, however, Congress has not acted or acted incompletely, the states have certain reserved powers to act on their own. In other words, the Constitution acknowledges concurrent, although subordinate, state authority over foreign affairs – including immigration.

How do we know this? From both the constitutional text and from the record left by those who debated and ratified the Constitution. Here is the evidence:

* Instead of simply stating that states have no foreign affairs powers, the Constitution (Article I, Section 10) only lists a few specific foreign affairs powers denied to the states. For example, a state may not make a treaty or enter into a confederation with a foreign government.

* Under a rule of interpretation widely recognized by the Founders, the Constitution’s listing implies that all foreign affairs powers not denied remain with the states (subject to veto by federal law or treaty).

* In addition to prohibiting the states from exercising a few foreign affairs powers, the Constitution lists a few others subject to congressional pre-approval – such as the power to make non-treaty compacts with foreign governments. If foreign policy power were exclusively in the federal government, the Constitution would not recognize that states had any ability to enter compacts with foreign governments.

* Nowhere does the Constitution include language such as “all state authority over foreign relations is hereby abolished.” On the contrary, at several points the document assumes some state authority over the subject is retained. For example, the Constitution explicitly acknowledges state power to tax foreign goods to fund inspection programs. It elsewhere assumes that if Congress chooses not to adopt a “uniform Rule of Naturalization,” the states may adopt their own laws.

* The historical record confirms what the text suggests. For example, the records of the Constitutional Convention tell us that the delegates considered whether states could impose embargoes on foreign goods, and deliberately decided to leave that power with the states. A committee of the First Federal Congress recognized this power also.

The doubt about the judicial fate of Arizona’s law arises only because of the Supreme Court’s occasional practice of striking down state laws that Congress has decided to leave alone. This occurs primarily in the area of commerce and foreign affairs, and appears to be driven in part by the historically-false claim that federal power in those areas is exclusive.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court also sometimes lets such enactments stand. So what the Court would do with the Arizona law is anybody’s guess.

Rob Natelson is Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Montana and a nationally-known expert on the American Founding. After a quarter of a century in academia, he is leaving this year to fight full-time for freedom as a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado. His constitutional publications can be found at www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm. The views expressed here are his own, not to be attributed to any organization or institution.

Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014).  This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.

Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.

Five other states — Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming — are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots.

Real ID as the Blueprint?

While some constitutional experts are skeptical of the effect that such legislation could have, supporters can point to the successful campaign to oppose the Real ID Act.

In early 2007, Maine and then Utah passed resolutions refusing to implement the federal Real ID act on grounds that the law was unconstitutional.  Well-over a dozen more states followed suit in passing legislation opposing Real ID.

Instead of attempting to force the law to implementation, the federal government delayed implementation not once, but twice, and additional states  got on board with legally-binding legislation refusing Real ID implementation.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration, recognizing the insurmountable task of enforcing a law in the face of such broad resistance, announced that it was looking to “repeal and replace” the controversial law.

Nullification

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective’, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Nullification has a long and interesting history in American politics, and originates in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds, to the point of ignoring federal laws.

Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.

Historian Thomas E. Woods looks at nullification as a constitutional “check,” and a way to prevent one government from having the power to rule on the limits of its own authority:

“The main point that nullification aims to address is that a government allowed to determine the scope of its own powers cannot remain limited for long. This is a lesson we should have learned by now. Moreover, since piecemeal solutions to reducing federal power have accomplished nothing, we can hardly afford to dismiss out of hand the idea of nullification, a remedy that is at once creative and intelligent, and recommended by some of the greatest political thinkers in American history.”

Resistance Left, Right and Center?

Groups across the political spectrum have focused their efforts on this same principle – calling on state governments to not just say no to the federal government, but to actively resist federal laws and actions.

• Firearms Freedom Acts have passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and under the force of law, call on those governments to refuse federal regulation of firearms made and kept in those respective states.
• Bring the Guard Home is a campaign of mostly antiwar activists that are calling on governors to assert constitutional authority over their state’s guard – and refuse to deploy troops for any reason other than authorized by the constitution
• Medical Marijuana Laws - have passed in multiple states around the country and are directly opposed to federal drug laws that see marijuana as illegal under all circumstances.
• Real ID legislation has passed in approximately 2 dozen states requiring state governments to refuse implementation of the 2005 law.
• Health Care Freedom Acts are being actively pursued in six states (including Arizona), and would resist proposed national health care legislation on a number of levels.

While the resolution is non-binding on the Arizona government it takes a strong stand in support of the 10th Amendment and “serves as both a notice and a demand to the federal government to immediately cease and desist mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

Click here for the final vote tally and see the full text of the resolution below:

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:  “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”; and

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, many federal laws are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

Whereas, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

Whereas, Article IV, section 4, United States Constitution, says in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, and the Ninth Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring:

1.  That the State of Arizona hereby expresses intent to claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government or reserved to the people by the Constitution of the United States.

2.  That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

3.  That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

4.  That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.