Thank you for taking the time to visit the Maricopa County Republican Party website. If you're a first time visitor, feel free to browse around and find out more about the Maricopa Republican Party. Also, you may want to register as a member on the site - just click where it says, "Click here to create an account" in the "Login" tab to the right.
If you were registered as a user on the previous Maricopa GOP site, you will need to re-register as a member on this site.
If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please feel free to contact us using the contact page in the menu above. Enjoy the site!
Over the past few years, but especially during the past several months, there has been an extraordinary revival of interest in Thomas Jefferson’s idea of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. According to Jefferson, if the federal government were to monopolize constitutional interpretation, it would of course interpret the Constitution in its own favor and consistently uncover previously unknown reservoirs of additional federal power. Only a fool would consent to such a system, thought Jefferson, and the peoples of the states were not fools.
Needless to say, nullification is nowhere to be found on the three-by-five card on which our betters have written out the range of allowable opinion, so it has been greeted with the usual hysteria from predictable quarters.
The latest, and to my mind most laughable, example comes from Sean Wilentz, a history professor at Princeton, writing in TheNew Republic. The subtitle of Professor Wilentz’s article “The Essence of Anarchy” is “America’s long, sordid affair with nullification.” What Professor Wilentz omits in his alleged history of that “long, sordid affair” could fill an entire book, and indeed just weeks ago I announced the impending release of my own book on precisely this subject. (Nullification will cover the origins and theory of nullification, its forgotten nineteenth-century history, modern applications of the idea, and much else.) For now I’ll note the New England states that appealed to nullification (or interposition) against President Jefferson’s embargo, against what they considered the unconstitutional calling up of the New England militia during the war of 1812, against the use of military conscription, and against a law providing for the enlistment of minors.
U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who has earned a “Freedom Index” rating of 90 percent in the current Congress to date, has introduced a bill in the House to repeal ObamaCare. In her press release, Bachmann reminded her constituents that “the government already owns or controls about one-third of U.S. economic activity through the takeover of General Motors, the bankruptcy reorganizations of Chrysler, the partial ownership of two of the country’s largest banks in Bank of America and Citigroup, and the seizure of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as AIG. Taken all together, [with ObamaCare] we’re looking at half of the American economy in the grip of the federal government.” Bachmann said that it “will do nothing to spur economic growth … [but] will serve only as an obstacle to actual recovery and smother the spirit of innovation and freedoms that made this country great.”
Her bill is simplicity itself:
A Bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section I: Repeal of PPACA. Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
The Weekly Standard’s early April issue agrees with Bachmann:
If you are tired of our nation’s year-long health care debate and you were hoping that the passage of President Barack Obama’s health care bill would settle anything, then Politico has some bad news for you: the real fight is just getting started. Starting today, a coalition of leftist groups will sink millions of dollars into television advertising and astroturf events selling the plan to the American people. But as a Washington Post poll conducted after passage last week shows, the Obama administration and their leftist allies face a steep climb.
The top line numbers are bad but not daunting for the pro-Obamacare forces: 50% of Americans oppose the changes in the new law while 46% support them. But the numbers also show that most Americans believe the new law will cause “the overall health care system in this country” to get worse, “the quality of the health care you receive” to get worse, and “your health insurance coverage” to get worse. The poll also shows that most Americans believe the law will weaken Medicare and that there is “too much government involvement in the nation’s health care system.” And strong majorities of Americans believe Obamacare will increase the federal budget deficit (65%), increase “your health care costs” (55%), and increase “overall costs of health care in this country” (60%). The American people are right on all counts. And if the events of last week are any indication, these beliefs will only harden over time.
Nullification is the talk of the day, especially as it regards the federal health care law. Many states’ legislatures are offering and passing legislation and resolutions to nullify the health care law on the basis it exceeds the authority of Congress. This is a step in the right direction. However, unless specific provisions are in place to guide and protect the citizen, nullification might prove pointless.
Unless a citizen produces proof of coverage under the federal mandate, he or she will be taxed as a penalty for failure to buy a federally-approved insurance policy. In states where nullification efforts have passed, most instances will leave the citizen in a state of conflict.
Late last night, in a narrow and partisan vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the most significant piece of social legislation in over seven decades. It did so in the face of overwhelming and principled opposition from the American people. Large majorities of Americans oppose this legislation because it offends the historic American dedication to the principle of self-government. They understand that this new law will accelerate Washington’s intrusion into our most personal and private decisions.
This is why opposition to this bill will only grow. Supporters of this bill argue that popular hostility will recede upon its passage. But, rather than cementing our descent into a European-style welfare state, last night’s passage of Obamacare is best seen as a historic turning point, a true catalyst for real change.
Idaho on Wednesday became the first state to pass a law saying no thanks to part of President Obama’s health care proposal.
The Idaho Health Care Freedom Act says in part, “every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty.”
Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter, a Republican, said Wednesday he signed it because he believes any health care laws should ensure people are “treated as an individual, rather than as an amorphous mass whose only purpose in this world is to obey federal mandates.”
It might be instructive to look at how Pennsylvania dealt with the issue of slavery in our early history. This topic is useful, because in retrospect it is perfectly clear which side was morally right. So, this week I learned a little bit about the history of anti-slavery laws and sentiment in early Pennsylvania. I have only scratched the surface, so we will probably revisit this topic in the future. It may be that Pennsylvania’s activities, in support of Liberty for blacks in early America, can contribute to our Tenth Amendment roadmap for the future.
The first ever American resolution against slavery was issued from Pennsylvania in 1688. The University of Houston quotes the Germantown Petition against slavery as saying, “…In Europe there are many oppressed for conscience-sake; and here there are those oppressed which are of a black colour….Pray, what thing in the world can be done worse…”. The Germantown Petition, although largely ineffective, was passed among the Quaker communities in Pennsylvania.
Last December, when Tennessee Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mount Juliet, said she would introduce legislation which would declare null and void any federal law the state deems unconstitutional, some people were horrified. Rep. Lynn was specifically targeting the health-care reform legislation that was pending at that time. But the reaction that many people had to her language was not an expression of their support for Obamacare.
Too many Americans hear the terms “states’ rights” or the word “nullification” and immediately think of racial prejudice, Jim Crow laws and school segregation. Honestly, if all I had to rely on was what I remember being taught in public school, I would probably tell you the history of it all went like this:
Wyoming Bill Seeks to Combat Federal Distortions of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment – Includes Penalties of up to Two Years in Prison for Federal Agents Violating the Law.
Wyoming State Representative Allen Jaggi has introduced a “Firearms Freedom Act” (FFA) for the state – it’s filed as House Bill 95 (HB95).
While the FFA’s title focuses on gun regulations, it has far more to do with the federal violations of the commerce clause, which D.C. has used as an excuse to prohibit and regulate everything from wheat, to marijuana to guns.
If passed, the will would provide “that specified firearms that are manufactured, sold, purchased, possessed and used exclusively within Wyoming shall be exempt from federal regulation, including registration requirements”
Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of other activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.
Around the country, twenty two states are currently considering a bill known as the “Firearms Freedom Act.” This bill declares that guns, accessories, and ammunition made within a state, sold within that state and kept in that state are not subject to federal laws or regulations under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution.
Montana and Tennessee passed a Firearms Freedom Act into law in 2009, and a number of states are moving that direction in the 2010 legislative session. In South Carolina, where a Firearms Freedom Act was also introduced in 2009, some representatives have taken things a step further.
YouCut – a first-of-its-kind
project - is designed to defeat the permissive culture of runaway
spending in Congress. It allows you to vote, both online and on your
cell phone, on spending cuts that you want to see the House enact. Vote
on this page today for your priorities and together we can begin to
change Washington's culture of spending into a culture of savings.
Click here to learn more about our first week's winning item, a $2.5
billion spending cut.
U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who has earned a “
If you are tired of our nation’s year-long health care debate and you were hoping that the passage of President Barack Obama’s health care bill would settle anything, then 
ntiment in early Pennsylvania. I have only scratched the surface, so we will probably revisit this topic in the future. It may be that Pennsylvania’s activities, in support of Liberty for blacks in early America, can contribute to our Tenth Amendment roadmap for the future.
