by Derek Sheriff
Not surprisingly (I know, as an Arizonan, my pride is showing), Arizona is now one of four states this year to propose an Intrastate Commerce Act. Please note: that’s intrastate, not interstate!
The bill, which is based on model legislation written by the Tenth Amendment Center, has a name that sounds fairly innocuous, but do not be fooled! In fact, I predict that SB 1178 will startle ourÂ overlordsÂ in Washington, DC and deeply offend them in much the same way that Arizonaâ€™s immigration act, SB 1070 did.
The bill’s primary sponsors are Sen. Sylvia Allen, Sen.Â Linda Gray, Sen.Â Gail Griffin, Sen.Â Brenda Barton, andÂ Sen. Judy Burges. Co-Sponsors include Sen. Frank Antenori, Sen.Â Andy Biggs, Sen.Â Al Melvin, Sen.Â Don Shooter and Sen.Â Chester Crandell.
If passed by the Arizona State Legislature and signed by the governor, SB 1178 will amend the Arizona Revised Statutes in order to provide that all goods grown, manufactured or made in Arizona and all services performed in Arizona, when such goods or services are sold, maintained, or retained in Arizona, shall not be subject to the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce.
Wow! Now if that were not offensive enough to Washington politicians andÂ bureaucrats, the bill goes even further and would impose the following penalties:
A. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of an entity providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this chapter is guilty of a class 6 felony, except that any fine imposed shall not exceed two thousand dollars.
B. Any public officer or employee of this state who enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government in violation of this chapter is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, except that any fine imposed shall not exceed five hundred dollars.
Can anyone deny that this is truly nullification legis