Arizona Officials Ignore Court Order To Stop Infanticide

Arizona’s Governor and Attorney General have both issued orders and statements stating they would not enforce a court ordered protection of babies in the womb, authorizing the continued murder of children. They claim the ability to do so because, they claimed, the law the legislature passed, and courts deemed Constitutional, were actually unconstitutional, and they believed mothers and doctors have the right to kill unborn children. Additional irony is the fact that these same individuals would say that ignoring court edicts against self defense were a form of “anarchy” and unlawful.

Check out the following report for a more in-depth analysis.

Exposing such dangerous legislation as this has lead to physical attacks to the Tree of Liberty Society, please help us meet our goal to expand our voice by clicking here https://treeoflibertysociety.com/donate/

TRANSCRIPT

Generated using A.I.; please forgive any mistakes.

Just now the Arizona Supreme Court issued its opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Mays. My executive order removing the ability of county attorneys to prosecute women and doctors for performing abortions remains. The Attorney General for the state of Arizona, which was once a bastion of limited government and promoting the principles of liberty, has now become a state where the Attorney General and the Governor of the state of Arizona are now saying, "The law be damned, nothing will stop us from murdering innocent babies on today's Tree of Liberty Society." All righty, so I'm sure this is, you know, not news to a whole lot of you that in Arizona, the courts, which everybody says, "Oh, the Supreme Court said," right? "That the courts have ruled this, that, and the other thing, and so we just can't have liberty." But when it comes to protecting babies, not engaging in infanticide, then all of a sudden they become these constitutional experts where now it's their job, which of course we say it is, to enforce the Constitution and that the courts are not the final arbiters, but they only say that when it comes to killing babies.

Otherwise it's, "Oh, obey the courts, whatever the courts say, we have to do." But now that the courts have said that, "Hey, you know what? This law that the legislature passed that says, 'Hey, you know what? Killing babies is wrong and you're going to get punished if you do it,'" all of a sudden they become big old nullification proponents. So I want to play you a clip from the Attorney General of the state of Arizona talking about this issue. Arizona justices revived an 1864 law barring all abortions except in cases where the mother's life is at risk. It would replace the previous state law that allowed abortion through 15 weeks of pregnancy and there would be no exceptions for rape or incest. It's the latest state ban on abortion since the US Supreme Court reversed Roe versus Wade nearly two years ago. And the state's attorney general says she will not enforce it. Arizona Attorney General Chris Mays is here with me now. Good morning. Good morning. So you say you're not going to enforce this law. Why?

Well, for a number of reasons, we won't be enforcing this law. First and foremost, it is unconstitutional. It violates our state's right to privacy, which is expressly written into our constitution. Secondly. So going back to right, the right to privacy, all of a sudden, the fourth amendment, which says that the government cannot search you without a warrant, all of a sudden now that states that I can do whatever I want to my child, as long as it's still in my womb, I can do whatever I want because that's privacy. It's as if it was in, you know, their own home and using that same logic again. So not that means if your baby is now born because I have a right to privacy, it's in my own home. That means up until they leave the house, I have the right to kill that child because I have a right to privacy. That's where that logic leads to. It's insanity. It leads from infanticide all the way up to full-blooded, you know, full-blooded murder, which of course, you know, distinguishing murder between innocent children and adults. Of course, I would say that full-on murder is less bad than infanticide because an adult, you know, they have the opportunity to defend themselves as opposed to an, an innocent baby, especially an innocent unborn child. Uh, but they're claiming that the constitution, she's just this constitutionalist that she's going to stand up against the courts and she's going to enforce the constitution as an attorney general does your constitutional rights, supposedly to be able to murder babies is what they're going to defend. But that only applies when it's coming to the murder of babies. Okay. A lot of Republicans, unfortunately, as well are very much in favor of the murders of, of innocent children. Uh, but there is a, uh, we have a here, a Republican governor that, or a former attorney general, uh, that is talking about, um, you know, the idea of the attorney general, just deciding not to enforce the law in this article for governing. And in this article it's titled, what happens when the attorney general refuses to defend a law.

And we have here, Greg Zoller, the former, um, uh, AG in Indiana, who says that he, it says here that he had to defend all kinds of laws he didn't like, including the death penalty, which he opposed on religious grounds. And indeed most lawmakers, I mean, lawyers take on cases and clients they don't believe in. And he goes on to say, he says, the courts are empowered to make decision, the decision of whether a law is constitutional or not. Obviously he hasn't actually read the constitution. It's not what it says. Um, but that's what, so he's saying the courts are the ones that make the decision of it's constitutional. And to bring that question to the courts here has to be a lawyer. Uh, there has to be a lawyer on both sides to judge it. And so then he gave examples of errors of, of, uh, California's proposition eight and the fact that it, the, uh, attorney general not in, uh, defending it made it. And so that it took longer for the bill for the law to be struck down by the Supreme court. And so it causes problems. He's saying that if you don't do that, so, um, and so he's going on and on and talking about how it is not the attorney's general job to, um, decide to nullify a law that that's up to the courts to decide if a law is constitutional or not. But we have here, the attorney general of Arizona saying that she's not going to enforce this law against murdering babies simply because she said it was unconstitutional that she has a constitutional right to murder babies. And so, but then we have the, uh, the lefties, of course, again, people promoting big government. Um, we have here this article from, um, every town law.org when she talking about sheriffs refusing to follow the law talks about, um, laws. Of course, they always use these stupid common sense gun safety laws.

Just, it's just double speak, which to make you think that, oh, well, there's nothing wrong with this, that, that the second amendment saying that Congress shall make no law is, you know, irrelevant that because it's now it's common sense restrictions against your right to defend yourself. Uh, then we have, um, New Mexico's recent decision to close the unlicensed gun sale background and sheriffs refusing to obey those, uh, those laws. It says here, but we have watched with dismay in recent weeks as county sheriffs and some of these, uh, same states have publicly announced that they will not enforce these newly enacted laws. Their reason they say that they believe these laws violate the second amendment of the constitution. They don't, it doesn't matter, but it's not about belief. That's like saying, I believe that the sun is going to come up in the east tomorrow. Anybody that has the ability to read simple English understands that any restriction whatsoever is a violation of the prohibition in the, in the, in the, found in the second amendment, as well as the 10th amendment to the constitution.

There was nothing authorized to the federal government to regulate firearms. In fact, in the second amendment strictly prohibits it. And so that this does double speak of saying, you know, Oh, they're just these people off their rockers. They believe that it's against the, the second amendment says to be clear, the laws they oppose are precisely the types of laws. Courts have repeatedly upheld against constitutional challenges, finding that they do not violate the second amendment. But the problem with these sheriff's actions and not just that they are wrong. These laws are con the real problem is that these sheriffs are overstepping their role in the constitutional system and in the process, undermining the rule of law. So for these big government baby murderers, they have the right and the ability to arbitrarily say that they have the right to kill babies. But if you have a sheriff or an attorney general that says, you know what, this is a clear, just reading the language, I don't need a court to tell me what two plus two equals. I know how to read and I can't enforce that law because I have sworn to uphold the constitution. If it was simply up to the, the, the courts to be the sole arbiters of what is constitutional or not. Why would the sheriff, why would the attorney general have to have the, uh, uh, the oath of office where they swear to uphold and defend the constitution of their state as well as, uh, of the United States. It doesn't make any sense if their job isn't to do that is just to blindly like a robot. I am following orders. I just need to do what I'm told. I read the law. That's why, why do an oath to the constitution if that's all they're supposed to do, just blindly just do what they're, what they're told by the legislatures. No, every single step of the way, the founding fathers followed the example of nullification.

Personally, they had the States follow nullification. We have the Virginia resolutions. You have, uh, Thomas Jefferson saying that nullification is the rightful remedy. When any form of level of government violates the law, you have James Madison saying that, uh, that the States and the people are the final arbiters of what is constitutional and what is not. And the, it is the hypocrisy of the baby killers is on full display here. When they say that they can nullify a law prohibiting the murder of babies. And then all of a sudden they turn around and they say, oh, your ability to defend yourself against harm from an individual or the state. Uh, of course, you know, you cannot nullify that. We need to wait for the courts to decide that one. We need to understand that what this, what is really going on here. This is a war against children. This is a war. The government has, has declared war on us. They say we can kill babies. You cannot defend yourself, but as plain as day of what they're saying and what their intentions are. It's essential that we understand that and that we act accordingly. That's what we're doing here at the tree of Liberty society. I encourage you to please make sure to not allow them to silence us. As you know, uh, they have used raids. They have used intimidation. They have used attention, kidnapping of my children. Uh, they have done things over and over again.

They have attempted to take away my ability to provide for my family and, uh, just the list goes on and on. We need your help. Please go to the tree of Liberty society right now, become a member or make a one-time donation and get a fantastic gift. A digital copy of my book invasion volume one or two, or the audio version of volume one, please go to tree of Liberty society right now and help us out today. Help us go on the offense against these people that are at war with us so that we can once again, restore lost Liberty. I'm Ben McClintock, and I'll see you next time.