No products in the cart.


Arizona Voters Approve Proposition To Reject Federal Acts

Tenth Amendment

This article comes from the

PHOENIX, November 4, 2014 – Today, voters in Arizona approved a ballot measure that follows James Madison’s advice to stop federal overreach. With 80% reporting, the tally held steady and increasing at 51-49%.

Approved was Proposition 122, a state constitutional amendment that enshrines the anti-commandeering doctrine in the state constitution. The language amends the state constitution to give Arizona the ability to “exercise its sovereign authority to restrict the actions of its personnel and the use of its financial resources to purposes that are consistent with the Constitution.”

This language is consistent with the advice of James Madison, who wrote in Federalist #46:

Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. [emphasis added]

The amendment language mirrors the well-established legal doctrine of anti-commandeering.  The Supreme Court has consistently held that the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce and federal act or program.It rests primarily on four SCOTUS cases – Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), New York v. US (1992), Printz v. US (1997) and National Federation of Businesses v. Sebelius (2012).


Prop 122 places language in the state constitution that would empower the state to pass referendums, bills or use other legal means to end cooperation with an unconstitutional federal act. Supporters of the amendment say the provision allowing the people to vote to refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will prove especially significant.

“Basically, it will allow Arizonians to hold a state referendum on federal policy, something I don’t think has ever been done before,” one supporter said.

While the people of Arizona could hold a referendum like this now, by constitutionalizing the process, it now allows Arizonians to hold a statutory referendum on each issue instead of a constitutional referendum. A statutory referendum requires less signatures to get it on the ballot, something supporters say will allow grassroots groups to initiate the process.The money necessary to get a constitutional referendum on the ballot makes grassroots efforts difficult.

Read more here.





  1. This probably doesn’t equate to (us) Arizonan’s that live 6 months on BLM land, but what (we) are experiencing, following the Bundy Stand-off, is the noticeability of (our) OathKeeper stickers by law enforcement and the very pleasant response by L.E.O. Rangers…but from what is reported to me, an overly nice encounter, that one (old timer), NOT a member of OathKeepers, but has a sticker on his truck….the Ranger sounded “way too nice and welcomed him” and the old timer basically responded with, “yeah right !”

    Others that may or may not be OathKeepers, are not wanting to show their I.D.’s because they were not pulled-over, but BLM often attempts to initiate a “Contact” for something they see or believe to be “suspicious,” like wood stacks or older vehicles.

    What’s interesting to note…it appears that when local and county law enforcement are needed by the BLM Ranger, the situation is about to go south. I have never heard of a BLM Ranger making an arrest on his own. They only dish-out expensive citations to those they know, can’t afford it. They pay close attention to NRA 2nd amendment stickers and OathKeeper stickers on vehicles, of which many in this area have stickers on their vehicles, but are not members in most cases. Note: About two years ago, over 50 OathKeepers stickers were handed-out !

    Because local and county law enforcement do not readily respond to BLM Ranger requests, (we’re) now hearing that BLM Rangers are requesting help from local or state law enforcement by implying that the “Contact’s mental state of mind is questionable.”

    That gets law enforcement going and in one incident, the local EMS responded with the P.D., to only discover…the contact was actually within his rights and not having a mental breakdown.

    What follows is harassment by other BLM rangers on different days….

    Therefore…if you are not camping in a $250,000 custom RV and you’re sleeping in your Van, you better know your rights and avoid getting a 30 day vehicle impoundment. No…that’s NOT me LOL.

  2. Do I guess I get that the State of AZ is ready to resist the Fed and the powers it has to offer to trample your so less that meaningful vote of ‘We will not except or tolerate’. Sure that is great, hang in there. Get a handle folks, play Fed or don’t play. If you don’t ply by our rules are you really prepared to resist and give up all the different Fed Support Programs that you are getting dollars for? Yeah! Right, stop all those funds coming and become a Constitutional State? Yeah. bite me on that, In or Out, Yes or No, Up or Down, Kiss off the Fed or just Smack them.

    Good Luck.

  3. If this amedndment is enacted,Arizona will join California in having anti-commandeering statutes, and Madison’s “Adjoining states” will become a reality.Thanks to Assemblymember Tim Donnelly and his California Liberty Presevation Act,signed into law last October,we in Az.and Ca. can create “Embarrasments”for the Feds.
    I cant resist a word here about the distain some may have for “Commiefornia” “the left coast” “the land of fruit and nuts”.From my own experience in traveling about Ca.we have a great number of informed,liberty minded folk.Certainly I and my activist compadres here on the Central Coast are as dedicated as any patriot in Mo.or Cn.or La.I could ask you;Does your own state have an anti-commandeering act like ours? For the record, we don’t dye our hair pink,never met Annette Funicello or Frankie Avalon,and stand ready to make love AND war.

  4. Prop 122, placing language in the state constitution that would empower the state to pass referendums, bills or use other legal means to end cooperation with an unconstitutional federal act, is resting on the common language of the Constitution, exactly what our Constitution says under the 10th Amendment in regards to the power of judicial review. towit; “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.”Nothing in the Constitution delegates the power of judicial review to the United States, and it is prohibited by it to the States, thus the power of judicial review or interpreting the Constitution is reserved to “We the People,” in this case, the people of Arizona. Hopefully people of other States will follow suit.

  5. @ D. Bertrand, “This probably doesn’t equate to (us) Arizonan’s that live 6 months on BLM land…”

    There is LAWFULLY no such thing as BLM land. It belongs to the state. The ONLY land the federal government had under their control was/is Washington DC – 10 square miles … here, read it yourself. Remember the BLM is a paid federal agency who was allowed to manage the states land, not steal it. The only way, and reasons for, the feds to get land is listed within the constitutional sections below.

    Article 1, Section8, Clause 17: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”;

    Article. IV. Section. 1. “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

    Section. 3. “… The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

    (I think I covered all of them, but if not could someone else who knows what I missed post it?)

    All states were created from the territory that was held in trust by the general (federal) government for such things until each state created its boundaries and its republican form of government; then all land within its marked boundaries belong to the state.

    It is very important to realize exactly what the federal government is lawfully allowed to do, and what it takes upon itself to grab as power that was not assigned by the people to it. Those misunderstandings are why we are where we are today. God bless and I hope that assists you in understanding it better.

    Getting control of your states and making them constitutional – US Constitution and state Constitution – will help a lot since the states created the US Constitution with input from the people of each state (Many had a list sent with them to refer to).

    Those who serve within the federal government have way overstepped the boundaries placed on the position in which they serve. Remember that the agencies were allowed to be created to ASSIST those who serve with their Constitutionally assigned duties (ONLY), not to create mandates, etc that would harm the people and their Natural Rights. There is NOT ONE of those agencies that were given that authority, which means that they are all committing treason, and when one is threatened, *terrorism against American citizens and the USA.

    28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

Comments are closed.