So, with the NCAA basketball tournaments all wrapped up, I guess it’s time to talk about my unfortunate failure to overrule the NCAA regarding which team won a particular game. You see, my alma mater, the University of Michigan, was playing in the “elite eight” round, and the players found themselves behind by a couple of points. With the clock winding down to zero, one of our players took a long three-point shot to win the game, and, unfortunately, he missed, and we lost.

Or so the NCAA would have you believe…

You see, I want a state law passed allowing me to overturn the loss to UCLA on the grounds that I don’t like the outcome. I know I don’t have any power or authority over NCAA rules, nor do I have the power to compel a particular outcome. But I don’t like what happened, and I demand that I be allowed to run things the way I want to.

Which, of course, brings me to Arizona Governor Doug Ducey…

A recent story in Colorado Politics reported on Ducey signing a new bill into law which declared Arizona as a “Second Amendment Sanctuary State.” That means, according to the new law, that “[Arizona] and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer, or cooperate with any act, treaty, order, rule, or regulation of the United States Government that is inconsistent with any law of this state regarding the regulation of firearms.” The bill was sponsored by Arizona state rep Leo Biasiucci, who seems to think it’s OK to use up all the vowels in his name and not leave any for everyone else. Biasiucci declared that “Arizona stands with law abiding gun owners” and that his bill sends a message to “zealous gun-grabbers” in Washington.

Arizona joins other deeply red states Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, and Wyoming in declaring their “sanctuary” status, somewhat ironic given the GOP’s usual obsession with denying other governmental entities the ability to declare sanctuary zones, but I digress…

Now, this type of thing is pretty consistent with the overall nonsense the national GOP has been spouting. Recall the couple of hundred new state laws recently proposed to suppress the vote (when voting fraud is nearly nonexistent) while rejecting, say, sensible rules for semi-automatic military-grade weapons (when dozens and dozens of Americans are killed by such weapons each year). The GOP has, yet again, warmly embraced hypocrisy with the same full-throated hubris we have seen so often. And so, to those Arizona legislators and the governor, I have two words:

McCulloch vs. Maryland.

Is that actually three words? Does the “versus” count when it’s just a vs? Hard to say. But what is quite clear to anyone who has actually put in some time in studying the Constitution is that states don’t get to overrule federal laws.

Way back in 1819, the US Supreme Court heard the aforementioned case in which the State of Maryland decided that it would demand property taxes be collected from the new federal bank that sat on a lot in Baltimore. James W. McCulloch – the cashier of the bank – refused the state’s demand for money. The case went all the way to the top court, which ruled unanimously that, basically, states don’t get to order the federal government around. It is a bit more complicated than that, but you get the point. In terms of constitutional significance, this case created the doctrine of “national supremacy.”

States, the Court ruled, do not get “nullify” federal laws they do not like. I chose that word “nullify” carefully, because one of the factors in the run up to the Civil War was the doctrine of nullification declared by some southern states, on many questions but especially on slavery.

The outcome of the war settled the question. Basically, the national supremacy doctrine means that your rights as an American do not vary by the accident of your birth. A state cannot, for example, decide that women don’t get to vote within its borders, nor can a state collect tariffs on goods made in a neighboring state.

And it means that states cannot declare that their own state government will ignore whatever federal laws they want to. There are lots and lots of important areas where the national supremacy doctrine is vital, such as civil rights, gender rights, taxation policy and more.

So why is Arizona doing this? The leaders of that fine state are not stupid. They know they have passed a truly unconstitutional law. But they also know that a portion of their electorate will get very excited by this new law and will see it as a bold rejection of federal overreach, rather than the cynical grab for emotional support the legislators know the new law to be.

We’ve talked before about work horse legislators (who work hard without the publicity) and show horse legislators (who grab for the spotlight for personal gain). Assuming, as I do, that the Arizona legislators are smart and capable people, there is only one reason for passing such a law – showing off for a portion of the electorate they think will be influenced by such grand (and doomed) gestures and grabbing some spotlight time. But the echoes of 1819 are still with us, and, happily, we don’t really have to worry about states actually defying federal law.

Now, who do I see about getting that Michigan game overturned?