Who needs the Supreme Court, or the Constitution? Not Arizona

Aw, conservative cry babies didn't get their way. Time for a tantrum. 

This amazing story is unfolding in Arizona and on a few right wing web sites, where some claim they can override the federal government and the Constitution with voter approval.

Would I kid you?

To prove their "patriotism," Tea Party Republicans are getting out their dog eared pocket constitutions, tossed them into the trash bin, and have decided to ignore the rule of law and the founding document of our country. If this isn't a recipe for complete chaos, I don't know what is:

AZDailySun: Voters could get the right to overrule federal laws and mandates under the terms of an initiative filed late Thursday. The Arizona Constitution already says the federal Constitution "is the supreme law of the land." This measure, if approved in November, it would add language saying that federal document may not be violated by any government -- including the federal government.

More to the point, it would allow Arizonans "to reject any federal action that they determine violates the United States Constitution." That could occur through a vote of the state House and Senate with consent of the governor. But that also could occur through a popular vote on a ballot measure, effectively allowing voters to decide which federal laws they feel infringe on Arizona's rights as a sovereign state.

Now you know what our shoot from the hip, radically unorganized, small government Republicans think constitutes freedom and liberty; lawless Boss Hog chaos. There's more:

Organizer Jack Biltis said there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which gives the federal government the power to enact a national health care plan. Biltis acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court, faced with exactly that question, ruled to the contrary. "I believe the Supreme Court completely got it wrong," he said.

Biltis’ also included the argument put forward by liberal talk host Thom Hartmann:

In fact, Biltis argued, the ability of the nation's high court to interpret -- and invalidate -- federal laws itself is not part of the U.S. Constitution but was claimed by the court in 1803.

Biltis (also) finds to be constitutionally unacceptable the federal law signed during the Bush administration which phases out the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs to save energy. 

 Yes, he's one of those "pigtail light bulb" protesters. Does it sound like Biltis wants to go back to, let’s say, the Civil War?

Nor is Biltis troubled by the idea of individual states interpreting federal law -- and nullifying those they believe are unconstitutional. He said that is precisely what happened in pre-Civil War days when some Northern states refused to honor the federal Fugitive Slave Act which required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.

But Bilitis’ measure isn’t the only one on the ballot:

A separate proposal crafted by Rep. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, would have Arizona declare its "sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within its boundaries." Exempt would be tribal and military reservations.

Here's conservative radio's nicotine numskull Vicki McKenna, and 10th Amendment Centers Michael Bolden, pushing nullification of the health care exchanges (audio):