In Mike McClellan’s guest commentary in the AFN on Feb. 15 (“The inmates do indeed run Ariz.’s asylum”), he ridicules three state lawmakers for proposing legislation that would “require Arizona judges and law enforcement to act in an unconstitutional manner” because the federal government has “supremacy” over gun laws.

It’s truly sad that we don’t understand our own history. With only a modest amount of effort one can understand the timeless principles upon which our country was founded. Do we even know what happened from 1750 to 1790?

The Constitution was drafted in 1787 during the course of vigorous debate and it was ratified in 1789. It formed the entity that we call the “Federal Government.” But what we’ve forgotten is that we have a “federal system” of government. The Constitution created a national government that was supposed to share power with the existing state governments. The national government was to represent the states and govern primarily in foreign affairs. The states were to govern primarily in domestic affairs, within their respective state boundaries.

During ratification, there was another national debate: whether a bill of rights should be added. Some felt strongly that the Constitution was sufficiently clear that the powers delegated to the national government were limited. Others, however, insisted that the limitations be even more clearly articulated in a Bill of Rights.

The very nature of this debate from 1787 to 1789 continues and is the primary difference between liberals and conservatives today: is the United States Government limited by the enumerated powers in the Constitution or not?

Fortunately for us, those who insisted on a Bill of Rights were successful and the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791.

The 10th Amendment is clear: Powers not specifically granted to the national government were retained by the states, or by the people.

Mr. McClellan is correct. The supremacy clause clearly states that the national government is the supreme law of the land. However, the supremacy clause applies only to those powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Here’s an example: The U.S. Constitution grants the national government the power to negotiate treaties with other countries. That’s for the national government to do, NOT the individual states.

What we’ve forgotten is that the states have the right and the duty to push back on the national government when it exceeds its enumerated authority.

In 1798 Thomas Jefferson described this principle in the Kentucky Resolutions, which McClellan refers to in his commentary: “Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

The proposed legislation applies to “a personal firearm, accessory or ammunition that is owneOur ‘inmates’ are doing their duty

In Mike McClellan’s guest commentary in the AFN on Feb. 15 (“The inmates do indeed run Ariz.’s asylum”), he ridicules three state lawmakers for proposing legislation that would “require Arizona judges and law enforcement to act in an unconstitutional manner” because the federal government has “supremacy” over gun laws.

It’s truly sad that we don’t understand our own history. With only a modest amount of effort one can understand the timeless principles upon which our country was founded. Do we even know what happened from 1750 to 1790?

The Constitution was drafted in 1787 during the course of vigorous debate and it was ratified in 1789. It formed the entity that we call the “Federal Government.” But what we’ve forgotten is that we have a “federal system” of government. The Constitution created a national government that was supposed to share power with the existing state governments. The national government was to represent the states and govern primarily in foreign affairs. The states were to govern primarily in domestic affairs, within their respective state boundaries.

During ratification, there was another national debate: whether a bill of rights should be added. Some felt strongly that the Constitution was sufficiently clear that the powers delegated to the national government were limited. Others, however, insisted that the limitations be even more clearly articulated in a Bill of Rights.

The very nature of this debate from 1787 to 1789 continues and is the primary difference between liberals and conservatives today: is the United States Government limited by the enumerated powers in the Constitution or not?

Fortunately for us, those who insisted on a Bill of Rights were successful and the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791.

The 10th Amendment is clear: Powers not specifically granted to the national government were retained by the states, or by the people.

Mr. McClellan is correct. The supremacy clause clearly states that the national government is the supreme law of the land. However, the supremacy clause applies only to those powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Here’s an example: The U.S. Constitution grants the national government the power to negotiate treaties with other countries. That’s for the national government to do, NOT the individual states.

What we’ve forgotten is that the states have the right and the duty to push back on the national government when it exceeds its enumerated authority.

In 1798 Thomas Jefferson described this principle in the Kentucky Resolutions, which McClellan refers to in his commentary: “Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

The proposed legislation applies to “a personal firearm, accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within Arizona’s borders.”

Who should have more control over what happens within Arizona’s borders? The state? Or the federal government?

The Civil War is over. But the federal government and the states have been fighting over power since the Constitution was ratified, as was designed by the founders.

Unfortunately, the states have been losing since day one.

Smith, Townsend and Petersen are simply doing their duty. They deserve our respect and our thanks. Not our ridicule.

• CPA Bill Richardson and his wife, Annelle, have lived in Ahwatukee Foothills for more than 17 years. They have four children and one grand-child.d or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains exclusively within Arizona’s borders.”

Who should have more control over what happens within Arizona’s borders? The state? Or the federal government?

The Civil War is over. But the federal government and the states have been fighting over power since the Constitution was ratified, as was designed by the founders.

Unfortunately, the states have been losing since day one.

Smith, Townsend and Petersen are simply doing their duty. They deserve our respect and our thanks. Not our ridicule.

• CPA Bill Richardson and his wife, Annelle, have lived in Ahwatukee Foothills for more than 17 years. They have four children and one grand-child.

(1) comment

Chet
Chet

This guy's right! Arizona's politician's are not crazy racists or corrupt con-men like the media would have you believe!

They're protecting us from Obummer and Agenda 21!

Obummer and the UN blue helmets are coming to take our guns and make us ride bicycles! They're going to make you eat kale salads with low fat dressing!

Low fat dressing! Wake up!

Don't let reality fool you! You need to stock up on freeze dried food, bullets, and Ted Nugent albums, because Obummer won, and as Chuck Norris predicted, the 1000 Years of Darkness has begun!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.