Quantcast
Home / legislature / Bill bars state resources to carry out presidential orders, court rulings

Bill bars state resources to carry out presidential orders, court rulings

Hand

A first-term lawmaker is pushing legislation he contends will block at least two branches of the federal government from imposing their will on Arizona.

HB 2024 would forbid the state from using its resources to implement any presidential executive order unless it had been approved by Congress and found to be constitutional. Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, said he crafted it even before President Obama announced on Tuesday he is taking executive action to redefine who is a gun dealer and subject to requirements to do background checks.

A second section would apply the same standard to directives of federal agencies.

Finchem, Mark

Rep. Mark Finchem

Those appear not to be much of a leap from Proposition 122, a state constitutional amendment approved in 2014 allowing the state to refuse to fund what it considers unconstitutional federal actions.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 1997 case involving Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack, ruled that even Congress could not force local government to use their resources to conduct background checks on gun buyers.

But HB 2024 also would extend the same language to decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Finchem said that, absent congressional action, there is no reason that Arizona should have to do anything — or use state resources — to comply with court rulings.

In fact, Finchem told Capitol Media Services it’s wrong to even call what comes from the high court a “ruling.” And he derided the idea that the justices created “case law.”

“It’s not law at all,” he said.

“It’s case opinion and past practice, past application,” continued Finchem who got seven other Republicans to sign on as co-sponsors of the measure. And he said that it really is just the opinion of the majority of justices in a given case.

“The court can pass an opinion all day long,” he said. “But until that opinion goes back to Congress and becomes an enactment, and is signed into law, a statute, by the president, it’s not operable.”

Many high court rulings which involve specific disputes between individuals, businesses and even governments are unlikely to trigger what Finchem proposes. That’s because they do not require states to actually use any of their resources.

But there are cases where what the justices decide can have financial implications for state and local governments.

One ruling in that category is the decision by the justices that states cannot deny the right to wed to same-sex couples. The net effect was to tell states that if they issue marriage licenses they have to make them available to all couples regardless of sexual orientation.

Finchem said he sees no reason why the justices, on their own, can force that on states.

He said civil marriage is essentially a creation of the Internal Revenue Service on the premise the taxing agency needed to know who was entitled to certain benefits.

“If the federal government wants to issue a gay marriage license, they’re free to do that,” Finchem said. “But it’s not a state license.”

More to the point, he said the federal government — and a federal court — cannot force the state to do something when it’s contrary to the state’s own constitution.

That’s based on the idea that the state and federal governments are “co-equal sovereigns.”

“That means that the federal courts do not have the authority to go messing with the states’ constitutions, just like the states don’t have the authority to go messing with the federal Constitution,” Finchem said.

And that, he said, goes to the heart of his legislation forbidding state and local governments Arizona from obeying what comes out of the Supreme Court.

“It’s a court opinion,” Finchem said.

In some ways, though, Finchem said none of this is the government’s business. He takes an even more libertarian view of the whole issue than many of those who have battled same-sex nuptials.

“I do not believe government should be regulating marriage,” he said. “That is between us and God, period.”

But there are other Supreme Court actions that, in essence, impose mandates on the states or overturn state laws. Some have dealt with marriage like a 1967 ruling outlawing laws banning mixed-race marriages. And even older are various decisions overturning state laws which allowed — and in some cases required — various forms of racial segregation in schools and elsewhere.

Finchem said these are different.

“When you mix desegregation with the gay agenda, intellectually it’s dishonest,” he said.

“I know the gay agenda has tried to adopt that,” Finchem continued. “That is not the same thing.”

2 comments

  1. I wonder why there are no comments here at all. Every living person in Arizona is just trying to get by and ignore the craziness of its government. This is becoming such a tangled web no one even feels capable of fighting it. Good job Arizona leaders! You have successfully made the people of Arizona give up on you. I wouldn’t think of that as something to be proud of. I guess we will be one of the few states to continue to see preventable gun deaths and to oppress the rights of those not in a “traditional” marriage arraignment. So disappointing, very obvious you guys don’t care about people, just the types who should not be in charge of large groups of people!

  2. The Supremacy Clause and its legal case history along with the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights make Mr. Finchem’s notion that the Supreme Court has no authority over state statutes absurd. As far back as 1796 (Ware v. Hylton), the Supremacy Clause was interpreted as granting the Nation’s Highest Court the ability to strike down state statues contrary to federal action and federal statutes deemed constitutional by that same Court. Congress, despite being able, has never attempted to refute this for over two hundred years.

    And over a hundred-and-fifty-years later, in Cooper v Aaron (1958), the state government of Arkansas held up its states’ rights argument to no avail in trying to block the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board ruling from being enforced in its state. In fact, a year earlier, in 1957, President Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10730, ordering the National Guard to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v Board to racially integrate schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. According to Mr. Finchem’s bill, such an action was unconstitutional. Bringing up the use of states’ rights by segregationists against those trying to dismantle Jim Crow is not being “intellectual dishonesty”. It is being honest about just one of the very dark chapters of US history defended by states’ rights arguments.

    And more to the point, for the sake of political and social stability our country’s leaders realized long ago that the country requires a final arbitrator when our various levels of government and/or private citizens have a dispute over the meaning of the US Constitution (i.e. the Supreme Court). Congress can always change or remove the context behind the dispute, but there still needs to be an authority to decide on a pressing conflict to determine what the “law of the land” actually entails at a present moment. Our Congress was never designed for speed or, indeed, often the ability to achieve consensus. These Justices – who Mr. Finchem unwarrantably wishes to believe should have no authority over matters here in AZ – may not be elected but they are appointed by a democratically-elected president and conferred by an equally democratically-legitimate Senate. These Justices are also steeped in legal learning and case knowledge -a very different picture than that found with far too many members of state legislatures (i.e. Mr. Finchem).

    I’ll end this lengthy comment by addressing Mr. Finchem’s wrongheaded remark, “that government has no business regulating marriage”. Again, his libertarian sensibilities seems to forget that people, organizations and institutions outside of government can and do oppress people. In Mr. Fichem’s world of marriages without government intervention, government would sit on the sidelines as same-sex couples – and let’s be honest some interracial couples – would be denied services equal to their heterosexual peers by those who are in positions of power relative to them (i.e. employer, landlord, places of public accommodation, hospitals, etc) due to whatever objections can be conjured up. Just as government upheld interracial marriages over the religious objections of state governments and private citizens, government has a proper place to ensure marriages of same-sex couples are given equal weight to heterosexual couples.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

 

x

Check Also

Justice word engraved on the pediment of the courthouse

State Supreme Court gives deported man second chance at trial

In a unanimous ruling Tuesday, the justices said that Hector Sebastion Nuñez-Diaz never would have entered into a plea deal on a drug charge had he been informed it would result in his automatic removal from this country.