July 22nd [Phoenix, AZ]
Governor hopeful, Andrew Thomas, was a guest speaker at a local LD Republican meeting last night. After his stump speech, in which he never once mentioned the constitution, liberty, freedom, sovereignty, or anything related, he took questions from the audience. Most of the questions were typical Republican questions. Border security was one of the first ones. A gentleman asked, “what do you intend to do for our illegal immigration problem and when did illegal immigration become a problem and why?” His answer was very uncontroversial for his audience and typical of a Republican pundit, “build a bigger fence.” Somebody in the audience later asked him, “how do you plan on funding this, it seems like an expensive job?” His response was incoherent and didn’t offer a solution, rather, “I’ll have a plan later in my campaign that will address this.”
Never once in his rambling did he address the fact that we have a welfare state. For those concerned about illegal immigration, the goal should be to wall off the welfare state, not our country. Read more here. More questions were then asked with typical rubber stamp answers and his reassurance that “he doesn’t have a plan now, but he will later in his campaign.” He warmed everybody up to this response during his stump speech. He repeatedly said after almost every issue he discussed that he would, “have more on this later.”
When it came time for my question, I was direct. I asked him, “the federal government keeps over-stepping their limited enumerated powers by passing unconstitutional legislation that strips us of our liberties. If elected Governor, would you support and pass legislation that rendered unconstitutional federal overreach null, void and of no force in the state of Arizona?”
In short, NO. His answer was typical and flawed, claiming that since we fought a civil war, the idea of states having authority over the federal government is a farce. This is the typical answer from a Federal Supremacist that usually has attended law school where they apparently don’t teach U.S. history prior to 1860. First off, the civil war was fought over states trying to secede from the union. The whole idea that slavery was the cause for it is a misconception. Read more here
So, with Mr. Thomas’ rationale, since we fought a civil war, because states were trying to secede from the union, that gives the federal government all ultimate decision making power and the right to pass unconstitutional laws, rules and mandates that are outside their constitutional authority?
So, violence trumps the Constitution and the enumerated powers in Article I section VIII? It also trumps The Bill of Rights, which includes the Tenth Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Not a very good argument Mr. Thomas!
Usually when this argument, or defense mechanism fails, people like Thomas will resort to the Supremacy Clause.
The Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI states:
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Emphasis added)
Definition: In pursuance thereof – in accordance with
This seems to be the part of the “Supremacy Clause” that gets glossed over when they declare those who object to actions of the federal government which as stated by James Madison in Federalist 45 are not part of the enumerated powers of the Constitution.
James Madison “The Father of the Constitution” wrote:
”The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite
Thomas Jefferson (Author of the Declaration of Independence) wrote:
“Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
When it comes to siding with Thomas and you believe that the state and more importantly the individual, has no authority over the federal government when they’re usurping powers not delegated to them. Or to side with our founders, Madison and Jefferson which were historically two of the most important people in our founding.
I think I’ll side with the founders!
A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON ANDREW THOMAS
In 2008, the State Bar of Arizona launched an investigation of Thomas
On August 15, 2008, the Arizona Supreme Court denied his Petition for Special Action and ruled that the State Bar could proceed with the ethics investigations against Thomas.
On March, 2010, the Arizona Supreme Court, at the request of the State Bar of Arizona, appointed a special investigator to look into accusations of misconduct against Thomas, after a Pima County judge ruled that he acted unethically in investigating county supervisors for political gain.
On August 18, 2010, the attorney appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court to investigate Thomas’ conduct confirmed that he had been followed by private investigators.
On December 6, 2010, the report from the Arizona Supreme Court was released, and with the recommendation that Thomas be disbarred. The report alleges 32 ethics rules violations by Thomas, involving conflicts of interest, dishonesty, misrepresentation, filing a frivolous suit, and filing charges against county officials solely to embarrass or burden them.
Evidence thus far adduced portrays a reckless, four-year campaign of corruption and power abuse by respondent as a public official, undertaken at enormous and mostly wasteful cost to the taxpayers.
Motivation for much of the alleged impropriety appears retaliatory, intended to do personal harm to the reputations of judges, county supervisors and other county officials.
Actions by respondent appear intent on intimidation, focused on political gain, and appear fully disconnected from professional and prosecutorial standards long associated with the administration of justice.” Judge Jones added a 33rd ethical violation in the probable cause orders: that Thomas failed to submit substantive responses to the investigator.
On April, 2012, a three member panel appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court voted unanimously to disbar Thomas. According to the panel, Thomas “outrageously exploited power, flagrantly fostered fear, and disgracefully misused the law” while serving as Maricopa County Attorney.
The panel found “clear and convincing evidence” that Thomas and his deputy brought unfounded and malicious criminal and civil charges against political opponents, including four state judges and the state attorney general.
Thomas’ disbarment was the most expensive disciplinary proceeding ever in Arizona, costing approximately $577,000
While he had the opportunity to appeal his disbarment, he chose not to.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,