We received official notice on Friday that the Checks in Balances initiative will not make the November ballot.  Although we knew from the get-go that it was an uphill battle given the late start we had in collecting signatures, our belief in the urgent nature of this initiative was enough to give it the ol’ college try.

And try we did!  We got as close to success as we did thanks to the amazing determination of our friends, family and volunteers.  We simply started too late. We are so very appreciative of everyone’s efforts and know that our disappointment is shared amongst a great many people.

There have been suggestions of legal arguments which may have helped recapture some of the signatures which were disqualified by either the Secretary of State’s office or by the counties themselves; however, after meeting personally with these groups, we believe that they have been upstanding in their efforts, legitimate in their findings and most gracious to us in this somewhat mundane and thankless role they play. We will not be taking any legal action at this time. We have also made the decision to return any third party financial contributions as a good faith effort to not burn bridges or discourage folks from getting involved next go-round.

As disappointing as this news is, we are admittedly a tiny bit relieved to recapture some “normalcy” in our day-to-day. There have been a few reports about how a crazy millionaire in AZ had nothing better to do with his time or money and therefore started playing in politics.  While those reports were cute and helped us find some humor along the way, the fact is that our families and coworkers have made heavy sacrifices during this process.  We have spouses, children and coworkers who have directly and indirectly climbed onto this rollercoaster along with us.

We will take advantage of the next few months to catch our breath, refocus on our families and day jobs.  As with many first-time efforts, we have learned quite a few valuable lessons this time and we will certainly be taking those into heavy consideration when strategizing next cycle’s initiative efforts.

Thanks again to everyone who has helped push this initiative forward.  We will continue to post updates as we get close to the next cycle.

Two years ago, James Madison’s Montpelier Center for the Constitution conducted a survey of Americans’ knowledge of the Constitution of the United States of America. The report card should worry us all.  Although the opening phrase of the Constitution says, “We the People,” 50% of respondents said that they believed that the government’s source of authority comes from elected officials while 48% believe it comes from “We the People.”  Surely James Madison is turning in his grave.

And while 88% of respondents believe that limited government is important, only 35% believe that the Constitution specifically limits government power.  The irony in these results is that while 30% of Republicans believe that the Constitution specifically limits government powers, 46% of Democrats do.

So it is amidst this backdrop that we tackle the question of secession.  Let us begin with the definition of secession.

se·ces·sion

noun \si-ˈse-shən\

1 : withdrawal into privacy or solitude : retirement

2 : formal withdrawal from an organization

There are those who would have Arizonans view the Checks and Balances Initiative with contempt.  They allege that this Initiative is tantamount to an act of secession.  It is difficult to assign great weight to this allegation in a day and age where only 28% of Americans report having bothered to read the entire Constitution.  It is equally likely that they also didn’t bother to read the wording of this Initiative.

You can read it for yourself here: http://checksandbalancesaz.com/initiative-wording/, but let’s examine its most important and perhaps most powerful sentence:

“The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and may not be violated by the federal, state or any local government.”

Now compare the wording of this Initiative with the Ordinances of Secession passed by the states that actually seceded in 1860 and 1861.

Let us again review the text of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

“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.”

For those who have read the Constitution, endeavored to understand its mandates and to maintain “a more perfect union”, demanding that the federal government respect the 10^th Amendment rights of the States and of the people and for Arizona to assert those rights on behalf of her citizens is a far cry from a formal declaration of withdrawal from the Union.

If the Checks and Balances Initiative were a prelude to secession, it is doubtful that it would mandate ever stricter adherence to and interpretation of the very Constitution whose ratification by the people of the state of Arizona it would be seeking to repeal.

If Congress believes that Arizona (or any other state) should surrender to the federal government control over issues that have long been the constitutional province of the states, such as education and healthcare, then Congress has the power to propose such an amendment to the Constitution and send it to the states for their ratification and if 38 states so agree, then those issues would then rightfully transfer to the province of the federal government.

The federal government has no problem marching into Court to defend its constitutional right to set immigration policy or to regulate affairs with foreign nations, and all Checks and Balances does is empower the state of Arizona to do the same – assert and defend her constitutional rights and those of her citizens.

There are some who will attempt to discredit the Checks and Balances in Government Initiative by dismissing it as an exercise in ideology.  This is folly.  This is about real issues.  This Initiative is about the strict construction of the 10^th Amendment.

“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.”

Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, a conservative or a liberal, at some point the federal government’s usurpation of Arizona’s constitutional powers or yours has resulted in some federal action you strongly disagree with.  Today we will look at two in particular.

The Affordable Care Act(ACA) of 2010 represents an impermissible imposition upon Arizona’s constitutional right to regulate health care within its borders while the federal mandate for most citizens to purchase health insurance stands as an impermissible imposition upon Arizona’s citizens’ constitutional right to make their own decisions, right or wrong.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 federalized elementary and secondary education and further eroded state and local control.  Many have argued that the federal government has no constitutional authority with regard to education.  This is bolstered by the fact that participation in NCLB is “technically” optional.  States who do not wish to comply with NCLB can refuse to participate and refuse the federal funds attached to it.

The Affordable Care Act was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on constitutionally questionable grounds.  Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, did strike down one particular mandate:  the Medicaid Expansion.  Under the ACA, Medicaid was to be expanded to include millions more Americans.  The states were to implement this with the federal government paying 100% of the costs initially, and ultimately, 90% of the costs of this expansion.  The catch:  Any state who refused to expand their Medicaid programs pursuant to federal law risked losing all Medicaid funds.  On this point, the Supreme Court had this to say:

“Section 1396c gives the Secretary of Health and Human Ser­vices the authority to penalize States that choose not to participate in the Medicaid expansion by taking away their existing Medicaid fund­ing. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion.”

In other words, the federal government says it is optional; but, in reality, states have no real option.

The 10^th Amendment was designed to limit “one-size-fits-all” centralized government.  It is worth pointing out that, with respect to No Child Left Behind, Arizona applied for—and was granted, a waiver from the sanctions of NCLB, and as a result, regained local control over how best to improve education for Arizona’s children.  Arizona already has in place a system of reforms, and it should be allowed to pursue them unfettered by unnecessary federal interference, and that is our right.

Join the fight for the Checks and Balances initiative, which simply allows the state to check against unconstitutional actions committed by the federal government.

On July 5th, 2012 hundreds of thousands of signatures were stacked in boxes, row by row into the Secretary of State, Ken Bennett’s office. These signatures represent people in Arizona that agree the Checks and Balances initiative needs to be on this November’s election ballot.

The phrase “checks and balances” is as old as the American experiment itself.  Almost 350 years ago, our forefathers and mothers came to America to escape tyranny.  So deeply rooted was their belief in freedom they established a system that would protect the people and their fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In the two centuries that followed the Revolutionary War, the citizens of the United States ratified a Constitution which laid out the rights of the people and the relationship between the people and the government.  Five states, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut first voted to ratify the Constitution.  The remaining eight states initially rejected the Constitution because it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press.

The U.S. Constitution wasn’t ratified until an agreement was reached to amend the document to address the issue of the rights of the states.  On September 25, 1789, the first Congress of the United States adopted 12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution–the Bill of Rights–and sent them to the states for ratification. Ten of these amendments were ratified in 1791.

“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.”

Our forefathers and mothers understood then that without this provision that it would only be a matter of time before tyranny would rear its’ ugly head.  While few Americans dispute the need for the federal government to provide for the national defense, a uniform system of civil rights, the right of suffrage, the necessity for balance between federal and state government is often lost or simply misunderstood.

This is why Arizona’s Checks and Balances in Government Initiative is so vital.  For these reasons and many others, 320,000 Arizonans have put their names to the proposition that balance must be restored to the Republic.  This initiative isn’t a move to secede from the Republic, but to return to the people of the state of Arizona the rights guaranteed them by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a right so treasured by our forefathers and mothers that the Constitution itself wasn’t ratified until it was amended to reflect that.

Click here to view the embedded video.