Mike McClellan is a Gilbert resident and former English teacher at Dobson High School in Mesa.
Current users sign in here.
Since I wrote this, the prime sponsor of the bill, Kelli Ward of Lake Havasu city, has pulled the bill.
After the Republican staff attorneys told her the bill was "clearly unconstitutional."
And after the first House committee to consider the bill voted in favor of it, on a partisan 4-2 vote.
LOL! Boss Hogg and the Dukes of Hazzard style of politics are alive and well and living "on the compound" we call the state of Arizona. Scary. Arizona is the New South.
So Mike you are basically doing the same thing you lament others for doing.... Scare tactics are OKAY as long as it is for YOUR cause.?.?.? When will you realize right wing left wing is still the same bird. Keep dividing the country instead of bringing any solutions to the table. Typical
Before you conclude `nullification` is unconstitutional you might want to read "Nullification" by Thomas Woods, a terrific Harvard historian that discusses absolutely it is constitutional and why.
I believe as the radical Left continues to bankrupt America (along with neo-cons like Bush) that fiscally smart states like Texas will opt for this solution.
The Supremacy Clause only applies when its convenient.
Pot - convenient.
Immigration and gun control - inconvenient
Mike, How do you reconcile the Supremacy Clause with the Tenth Amendment?
If the Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate commercial exchanges between citizens of the same state, why does it so carefully define their power as being to regulate "interstate" commerce?
Yours is the standard law-school response deleting the most significant words of the whole clause.
It’s safe to assume that Thomas Jefferson was not unaware of, and did not deny, the Supremacy Clause. His point was that only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.
Critics like yourself expect us to believe that the states would have ratified a Constitution with a Supremacy Clause that said, in effect, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws we may choose to pass, whether constitutional or not, shall be the supreme law of the land.”
“Nullification’ talk is just a convenient word? Hardly. We're so bad and irresponsible! Note what is NOT irresponsible: abuses of executive orders, criminalizing marijuana based on the testimony of quacks, imprisoning Japanese Americans, slaughtering Iraqis for no good reason, destroying 96% of the value of the dollar, or racking up a present value of $222 trillion of unfunded liabilities.
wow! only in Arizona. The extremists seem to think we are the Mississippi of the 50"s or the Alabama of the 60"s (remember george wallace and his tea party borthers?).Are you kidding me, when will the uninformed be able to process reality and realize that the evil government already has everything they need to take care of any insurrection? You little pop guns will do a lot of good against, F-18's, F-35"s, tanks, armed drones, superior numbers of troops, more firepower, more resources, more of everything...with or without your popguns.
This is so funny. Mike-Mike-Mike, you are such a rebel rouser. Maybe you should take up house with Diane Feinstein. (you two would make a lovely couple) . I think you would do well in Northern Cali.. You should MOVE out of Gilbert, out of ARIZONA since we are all so stupid, the intellectual types like you have no business here with us crazy Arizonans. Really please move.
It is obvious to me that ‘simple’ media folks like to bash Arizona. It is the cool thing to do now days. I think the intent of this bill was to ‘IGNITE’ people into paying attention to the LIBERAL agenda of this President. No STATE should support Federal laws that contradict our UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Why are you so willing to give up your RIGHTS ?
Suddenly I have the urge to donate to the NRA . ($25 challenge to anyone who wants to support your 2nd Amendment Rights)
This is so funny.. WOW Mike-Mike-Mike, you are such a rebel rouser. Maybe you should take up house with Diane Feinstein. (you two would make a lovely couple) . I think you would do well in Northern Cali.. You should MOVE out of Gilbert, out of ARIZONA since we are all so stupid, the intellectual types like you have no business here with us crazy Arizonans. Really please move.
Suddenly I have the urge to donate to the NRA . $25.. challenge to anyone who wants to support your 2nd Amendment Rights.
thinkkoolaid doesn't seem to be in a position to call others "uninformed".Nobody's talking about insurrection. We're trying to avoid that by forcing the federal government to honor the terms of the contract they made with the States.
Politicians wasting time and money? This is my surprised face. This is why the Tea Party that Mike loathes so much are about lowering taxes and limiting government. Or was his ire only because it has to do with a liberal topic like gun control and the rest he is OK with.
I would like to introduce to Mike McC Harry Reid. If he does anything else but present a vote for a fiscal budget in the Senate, he is wasting time and money at the highest of levels. Or again, are we just talking about when it comes to guns.
Can somebody cite the language in a bill being introduced locally or federally, that contains the phrase "removing guns/firearms from citizens"?
OldMan, as you know, there isn't one. But as surely as legislation protecting the rights of teachers to present opposing views of climate change is a foot in the door toward allowing them to teach Creationism, banning classes of weapons and requiring increasing levels of ownership documentation is a step toward disarmament.
You probably could name at least one of your friends (if not yourself) who, during the recent election campaign, was laughing at people for being afraid that "Obama was going to take away their guns", but who during the past few months have been questioning why the government doesn't just take away all of those scary AR-15's.
Now I get it..............as long as most of our information is opinion based, then anything is possible.
Just like 20 minutes of cardio every other day will cure obesity.
Some people see the government as those nice people whose job it is to solve all of our problems, take care of us when we squander our money or get sick, and protect us from evil. Politicians have nothing but our best interests at heart and so nothing but good flows from above.
Others have read the Constitution and the writings of our Founders.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to add additional checks on the power of the federal government in addition to those that already made up most of the document, to ensure that the "just power derives from the consent of the governed", rather than from the fact that the citizens are held in an iron grip "for their own protection".
Regardless of one's political persuasion, this bungling attempt at lawmaking (that was thankfully dropped) should be of concern. Just as I am troubled by those who are enraptured with President Obama and refuse to acknowledge any fault in him whatsover, conservatives like myself should be concerned that in Gilbert we are electing people who take a ready, fire, aim approach to making policy. (This entire gun control debate is pointless. Nothing in any legislation that I have seen would have stopped the tragedy in Connecticut or anywhere else. Let's talk about the lack of funding support for our schools and the 17 trillion dollar debt we are about to selfishly foist upon our posterity).
This is really getting silly. It's a non-issue. Gun violence has been falling for a decade. All the government can do is reverse the trend by putting 'be stupid' number one on their list of things to do today. If you want to control guns, do so through education, understanding and practical experience, not demagoguery. Hey, the economy is shrinking, we are so deep in debt there isn't a horizon, and we're discussing non-issues? Mike and the knee jerk liberals are messing with your mind, Chuckle and move on.
unfortunately, mr. mclellan and many other nulification critics ignore how nullification was introduced by Jefferson and Madison in 1798 to resist the blatently unconstitutional Alien and Sedition acts, which were never found to be unconstitutional in the courts because the courts were filled with appointees of the ruling party. Nullifcation was used to ignore the evil dred scott decision and to resist the fugitive slave act.
Dr. Tom Woods has a funny video that educates and points out flaws in the anti-nullification arguements.www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCMKPtNEAto
@ RICHIf you believe Mike is really messing with your mind because these are non-issues, Then what are your politicians doing?? That is what's getting reported here.
Have you ever been out of state and have people say to you, Wow your from Arizona? Don't you guys have that crazy sherriff there? These politicians represent all of us! It is a fact that SB1070 cost Arizona some business/money to our state.
I agree that there isn't a law or regulation that can EVER prevent a massacre like we've seen recently.
Does anyone think there is a correlation between record gun sales and the fear spewing from tea partiers about having guns right taken away???
Another Mike McClellan....."Chicken Little" Column.....'the sky is falling ....woe is me...the sky if falling".
Now he wants Senator Diane "Why can't all of America be Socialist like San Francisco" Feinstein to spit on the 2nd Amendment.....like Obama spits on American Citizenship.
WAY TO GO, MIKE.....WAY TO GO......[wink]
frank, the precedence doesn't hold. While the Federalists packed the courts in the 18th and early 19th Centuries, no one would suggest that today the Democrats have a stranglehold on the Supreme Court.
Also, unlike the specifics you cite, there is no specific law the Arizona bill would nullify -- it's was a butcher's knife and not a scalpel in that it called for nullification of any FUTURE laws.
Hardly like what Jefferson and, to a lesser extent, Madison, were arguing about.
This bill, as written, was too broad and simple-minded. Sort of like characterizing nullification as "a principle behind the South succeeding."
If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed.... But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.
What you ignore, valleynative, is how this legislation sidesteps the courts altogether and sets up the legislature and governor as a de facto judiciary, there to judge the constitutionality of any future laws.
In other words, this nullification presumes that any court hearing a future law could, ultimately, rule in favor of that law.
So, in fact, these legislators weren't just providing for "sovereignty" but creating an extra-constitutional authority, one no state has, no locale has.
It's a breathtakingly arrogant and myopic view of the power of the legislature. It's "We know better than you." In other words, it's all the things the sponsors of this monstrosity claim of liberals.
Mike, What bothers me more than "We know better than you" is the liberal tendency to say "I know what you believe, and it's wrong".
Did you miss the fact that I said the bill was too broad and simple-minded, or did the fact that I disagreed with it just not fit into the cubbyhole to which you've assigned me?
However, it's foolish to allow one party to a contract to have full authority to rule as to whether or not the contract has been violated.
No, I didn't miss your comment at all. You downplay a truly scurrilous piece of legislation, one that goes far beyond "too broad and simple-minded."
It's nefarious, and I'm guessing that if a group of crazy Dems did the same thing, you wouldn't be as understated as you are here.
I agree with your final comment; one hopes that we all do. But in this current case, if a Republican-dominated House agrees with a Democratic-controlled Senate and passes a gun regulation, signed by the Pres., that doesn't exactly meet your "one party" idea.
Mike, The two "parties" in the contract are the Federal Government and the States.
The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are just two large special interest groups that have hijacked the system.
Yep, and this band of neoconstitionalists hijacked the judiciary at both the state and the local levels, in effect making a state governor and legislature the quasijudicial branch.
They were out to negate the courts. I believe that at both the federal and state levels the courts are a primary part of government.
Except in these neoconstitionalists' minds, of course.
"Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General (Federal) Government ASSUMES UNDELEGATED POWERS, ITS LAWS ARE UNATHORATIVE, VOID, AND OF NO FORCE (emphasis added) . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; . . . and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal(10th Amendment), will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories."—Vice President Thomas Jefferson, 1798.
Jefferson and Madison were arguing about a broad Constitutional power that each State had to resist ANY unconstitutional federal laws, as determined by each state's plain reading of the delegated federal powers. Jefferson often wrote how each branch of government, executive, legislative, judicial, and state, were independently to enforce the Constitution as they saw fit, according to their own opinions on the Constitution, and each had the ability to ignore illegal laws passed by another branch. This is why President Andrew Jackson told the federalist court under John Marshall to enforce their own rulings, because their rulings were not binding under the unconstitutionally assumed powers of judicial review.
Judicial review, Frank is settled law.
Second, both Jefferson and Madison were -- as valleynative points out above -- reacting to an existing law.
These Arizona neoconstititutionalists, on the other hand, are negating any future law.
Big, big difference.
In these neoconstitutionalists' minds, apparently, the idea of challenging law in appeals' courts isn't a necessary step, that the Governor and legislature can abrogate the powers of the courts and take that power on themselves.
Mike, Remember yesterday, when I said: >
That applies to statements like this:
There are stupid Republicans and there are stupid Democrats. I have no loyalty to any idiot just because of which club he happens to belong to. I hope you can say the same.
If I seem to be too understated to you, it's because I agree with the principle involved, that the Feds must absolutely NOT be allowed to overstep the Constitution, but that in this case, the bill was, as usual, badly written.
Well, isn't that special. Not only is the spam filter brain dead, apparently they let their nephew the web design student write the posting software, too.
I guess I wonder this, then:
Since we agree it's a bad bill, your phrasing -- "the bill was . . . badly written" -- confuses me.
What would a well-written bill about this look like?
A better bill would have avoided any sort of threat of automatic action and simply asserted the right of the State of Arizona to tell the feds to go suck it if they try to enforce any law that oversteps the limits of federal authority as defined in the Constitution. That leaves how, exactly, the determination that the limits have been overstepped vague enough to avoid being overturned immediately, but still makes the point that not everybody has forgotten the Constitution.
Looks like McClellen needs a class on the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated into State Law. Therefore only the states can restrict gun laws, not the Federal Government.
The Jefferson quote says, "WHENSOEVER the General Government". This clearly means whenever, in any time or place, past, present, or future. Jefferson made it clear, as did many other Founding Fathers, presidents, judges, congressmen, governors, etc., that the Principle of Nullification can be applied whenever, to whichever law is determined to be Unconstitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says about the Law. Nullification was used by Wisconsin in 1858 to refuse to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, specifically citing Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution of 1798, quoted above, and no one argued with Wisconsin's right to do so under the 10th Amendment.
If the Arizona law applies nullification to any law, past of future, then it is certainly 100% within the intent and meaning of Jefferson and Madison. Many laws "declared" to be "constitutional" by the Supreme Court were nullified numerous times by numerous states throughout American History. Thus, Judicial Review, while it certainly exists, is not binding upon Congress, the Presidency, and the states, as history has shown.
Frank, who's to decide "WHENSOEVER"? Are you comfortable with a law that will always sidestep the judiciary and leave law interpretation in the hands of the Governor? Any Arizona Governor?
And once again, the laws you cite were already on the books, not any future ones. That's a crucial difference. If, for example, Congress passed a bill that would prevent mentally ill folks who voluntarily (key word) institutionalized themselves, and their caretakers identified them as threats if armed from legally obtaining guns, Arizona would forbid that law from being enforced.
Now, imagine that a person like that here in AZ went to Walmart to buy a gun. Or went to a gunshow to purchase a gun.
Arizona law would prevent any review of his mental state. He buys the gun and kills someone.
Ready for the lawsuits that would follow? Starting with the state (us)?
And one more thing? Frank, are you a lawyer? I'm not. But the Republican legislative attorneys told the prime sponsor that the bill was "clearly unconstitutional" -- so what do you know that he or she doesn't?
Same with tennisplayer -- are you a lawyer? If so, what constitutional understanding do you have that is superior to the Republicans' staff attorneys?
Mike, The federal government has no authority to say that certain people may not own guns. The 10th Amendment puts that authority in the hands of the States or local governments. Just because something is a really good idea, that doesn't mean the federal government has the power to enact it as law.
Remember back when Congress wanted all speed limits capped at 55? Do you remember how they went about it, because they couldn't Constitutionally, simply pass a national speed limit?
And for the record, Arizona already prohibits possession of firearms by anybody who's been judged to be a danger to themselves or others. (Not everybody who is in a mental institution is necessarily dangerous, I'm surprised you'd be so bigoted).
See A.R.S. 13-3101 for the list of reasons why a person can't possess a gun according to State law.
Has anybody else noticed that people with strong opinions about what new gun laws are needed never seem to have read the existing gun laws? I recommend "The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide" as a quick reference.
So, valleynative, are YOU a lawyer? What gives you the special insight that the Republican legislative staff attorneys don't have? The staff attorneys said the bill was "clearly unconstitutional" -- are the simply lackeys of big government?
And you might want to brush up on the mentally ill portion of gun laws -- only those who have been ordered institutionalized are forbidden from owning weapons. A.R.S. 36-540.
Self-institutionalized are not part of that description.
Of course, not everyone who chooses institutionalization is so ill as to not possess a gun. But in our current system, only those ordered institutionalized are forbidden.
Mike, whether or not I am a lawyer is none of your business. What made this particular bill clearly unconstitutional is NOT that it proclaimed our legal right to nullification, but rather they way it intended to implement processes to act on that right.
I can't begin to understand why you think I don't understand the statutes regarding mental illness. OF COURSE people who self-institutionalize don't automatically lose their rights. That would be remarkably foolish and unjust.
You're mistaken though. Anybody who is judged to be a danger to self or others is a prohibited possessor regardless of institutionalization.
You see, it's not whether or not a person has been checked into a hospital that matters, except to the most mindlessly bigoted. What matters is whether or not they are considered to be a danger. You can see why that's the important factor, can't you? Really?
And HOW is someone identified as a "danger"? By a court, according to law. Which means that a self-institutionalized person cannot be denied a gun unless the institution or some other person with information about the patient's state takes the person to court.
And in fact, federal law expressly excludes a voluntarily institutionalized person from being denied a gun.
As to the law's unconstitutionality, it would forbid federal officials from enforcing federal law. That is clearly unconstitutional, nullifying a federal law. Again, if the neoconstitutionalists had really thought this through, they'd have realized the implications of passing something like that.
Mike, You don't seem to understand the role of the federal government vs the role of State government. The word "federal" means "of the federation". Their role is to govern the interactions of the States, not to govern the citizens of those states.
Most areas of citizen activity (highway speed being an example) are outside the scope of the federal government's authority, and so federal agents absolutely should be prevented from enforcing any unconstitutional law regarding those activities.
You also still seem to believe that anybody who has self-institutionalized SHOULD be denied a gun. This suggests to me that, like your knowledge of firearms and people who own them, your knowledge of mental health comes almost entirely from what you've seen on TV and in the movies. Here's a clue "crazy" is not a medical diagnosis. There are many reasons why a person might be institutionalized which do not make them dangerous in any way.
In the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shooting, debate over gun control and ammunition control is up.
Arizona and 15 other states are currently introducing anti-gun control legislation bills that are intended as a formal expostulation of the federal government’s overreach.
But Democrats, who control the California state legislature, are pushing 10 proposed measures for the toughest gun control laws in the nation. Include banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines – and banning possession of magazines holding more than 10 bullets.
As to your second comment, your assumption is wrong; we should make the path to help for those who want it as easy as possible.
As to your first claim, again, you are ignoring the issue, which is why the bill was deemed "unconstitutional" -- it tried to negate federal officials from enforcing federal laws in the states, prior to any court challenge of those laws.
And you even agree -- you say that "federal agents absolutely should be prevented from enforcing any unconstitutional law regarding those activities."
We've found common ground -- I 100% agree with your that federal agents (or any law enforcement entity, for that matter) should be prevented from enforcing unconstitutional law.
But that requires someone to rule that the law is unconstitutional. Which the Arizona bill would simply ignore and presume that any gun-related law is unconstitutional.
Glad we agree.
Mike, no, it isn't actually necessary for a law to be ruled unconstitutional by any particular body for it to be unconstitutional. The Constitution was written in plain English so that any citizen with a reasonable education could read and understand it.
This doesn't mean that the States get to make arbitrary decisions. They do, however, have the right to nullify laws which are clearly unconstitutional.
Think again about speed limits. If the feds had passed a national speed limit, that would have been unconstitutional, and the states could have ignored it.
If any federal officer decided to try to issue a speeding ticket, he would be breaking the law.
Well, at least now we know the premise upon which you'd decide what is constitutional. Though your first two paragraphs are in contradiction to one another.
But our neoconstitutionalists have already decided that any new laws regulating guns are unconstitutional, even before they are written, let alone enacted.
If I seem to be contradicting myself, then you need to consider that you don't understand.
Any new law infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms most likely would be unconstitutional, but that's beside the point. Any federal law that attempts to regulate sales between citizens would almost certainly be unconstitutional unless that sale constituted "interstate commerce".
Why would the authors have bothered to spell out the power to regulate interstate commerce if the feds already had the power to regulate all commerce?
The 10th amendment seems to be inconsequential to McClellan. We are the United "STATES" of America. Check the Constitution of every state and you'll see that there are subtle differences in all. Our forefathers feared a tyrannical executive branch, above reproach and beyond the authority of the states rights. Checks and balances were implemented to preserve power to the electorate. Progressives(Marxists) cite the Supremacy clause, taking it out of context. calling our beloved Constitution a "living document". The major news networks are already in the tank for Soros and co. so don't look for any objectivity or integrity there. The supreme court's conservative majority is quickly becoming compromised. The POTUS rules by fiat through executive orders and privilege. If McClellan bought a gun recently, he would've known that "court adjudicated mental issues" already are in place to prevent those with evil intent. "Those who fore-go liberty for security deserve neither"-----Thank you Mr. Franklin.
Mike,Don't worry. In just a few days some other whacko legislator will come along with another rediculuous scheme that will scare all the sane people in the state.Kavanaugh of Fountain Hills is about due. Let's see, he wants to protect gold fish from children and lottery winners from being made public. What a waste fof time and money.It seems the population of sane people in Arizona is dwindling rapidly.
valleynative: You said " Mike, no, it isn't actually necessary for a law to be ruled unconstitutional by any particular body for it to be unconstitutional. The Constitution was written in plain English so that any citizen with a reasonable education could read and understand it."
Plain English for those days. Not so plain now, sometimes.
You claim it doesn't take any specific body to rule on the Constitutionality of a bill.So, apparently, you believe each citizen can / should decide Constitutionality for himself. Which would, of course, result in as many different opinions as there are people, as people read shades into their interpretation. And people defying laws, such as the Income Tax law, because they " decided " that the Income Tax was unconstitutional.
All on their own. Each person decides which laws to follow and which to ignore. Once you start down the slippery slope of allowing each individual to judge the Constitutionality of each law -- you soon have each individual decided which traffic laws he will follow. I don't like stopping at red lights so I decide those laws are " unconstitutional ". Being limited to 65 MPH infringes on my rights and I decided speed laws are " unconstitutional " infringements on personal liberty.
More from Columnists
East Valley Tribune
Phone number: 480-TRIBUNE
Address: 1620 W. Fountainhead Parkway, Ste. 219
Tempe, AZ 85282
More Contact Information...
Please be brief (no more than 250 words) and submit your contact information for verification purposes. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.
A Division of 10/13 Communications