It's one thing to dedicate legislative time over selecting an official state firearm -- only two months since the horrific Tucson shooting.
It's another matter to blacklist and ban (and allegedly rough up) Latino activists from participating in Capitol hearings on immigration bills.
But on the heels of introducing a bill that grants a state committee the right to nullify "existing federal statutes, mandates and executive orders" -- what Arizona Republic columnist E.J. Montini refers to as the right "to secede without officially doing so" -- the Arizona state legislature is now considering SB 1495, which would give Gov. Jan Brewer the right to establish "an armed force for the safety and protection of the lives and property of the citizens of the state which shall be known as the Arizona state guard."
Here's the coda: If a "major portion" of the National Guard is away on service, this bill gives Gov. Brewer the right to call up this new state army "for any other reason the governor considers to be necessary."
Any other reason the governor considers to be necessary.
In case your attention has been on uprisings elsewhere in the world -- and in Wisconsin -- lately, the California-transplanted Brewer recently filed a suit against the federal government for its failure to protect Arizona against "an invasion" from Mexico.
Brewer's right-hand man -- Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce -- is not only worried about Mexico. Last fall he accused President Obama of engaging in "jihad" against America.
As Brewer discussed on ABC-TV news last Sunday: "We believe that the federal government just needs to get out of the way and let us run the states."
Or perhaps Brewer should say: Let us run our states, with federal money.
Despite beefed-up Border Patrol apprehensions, according to former Arizona governor and Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, "a key indicator of illegal immigration -- have decreased 36 percent in the past two years, and are less than half of what they were at their peak," Brewer clearly plans to ride the fear-mongering border security gravy train for as long as she can.
Private armies are nothing new for Arizonans, of course. In 1917, when immigrant copper miners went on strike in Bisbee, a gun-toting sheriff and his posse helped the Phelps Dodge copper company round up 1,286 miners by force, load them on trains and deport them. The militia simply asked each striker: "Are you American, or are you not?" Last month, a Washington-transplanted anti-immigrant activist in Arizona was given the death penalty for the murder of a 9-year-old Arizona citizen and her father.
If this bill passes, Brewer will have a private army -- the Arizona state guard -- to back her up for whatever the governor considers "necessary."
A Simple search of the AZ Constitution (http://www.azleg.gov/Constitution.asp?Article=16) will show you that the the Governor has full authority to create an official militia body not (or in addition to) the National Guard. Considering our national commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other non-combat deployment, and more specifically Arizona's military personnel, it isnt out of the realm of possibility that AZ could face a situation (increased border violence, natural disaster ect) where more paramilitary (as the case would be) personnel are needed.
This doesn't even begin to look at individual gun rights as protected by the AZ constitution (http://www.azleg.gov/const/2/26.htm)
which CLEARLY states individuals in protection of themselves OR THE STATE (a group of people choosing to do so would be a... MILITIA) are entitled to no infringement on their right to bare arms.
None of that even has to touch the US Constitution's 2nd amendment which has given federal legitimacy to any of these issues.
I get that you may not like Arizona being the state at the forefront of 2nd amendment rights, but don't publish editorials demonizing the Governor for acting well within her constitutional authority.
(this doesn't even address the correlation between non-linear events you try to paint in the opening)
So, your point is?
www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/Pages/default.aspx
Stay on point for your argument to have merit.
Arizonians who still revere the "rule of law", think the Constitution and Bill of Rights are actually positive things, and want to live in a civilized land can be resettled, and then we can put up a big fence around the state to keep the nutzoids in.
Sorry, I know this is kind of snarky, but I'm so tired of the constant flow of bullpucky.
According to The Tax Foundation www.taxfoundation.org Arizona is a debtor state. They received $1.19 in federal spending for every $1.00 of federal taxes collected in 2005 - the most recent year for which data is available. If this is still the case, secession might be a good deal for the federal government as well.
States are much more interdependent than some people think and one of the major roles of federal government is to see to it that states get along with regards to certain issues; particularly in terms of resource distribution (including interstate commerce as well as natural resources).
http://www.sgaus.org/