Now, HERE's a novel idea!
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

02/05/2020, 18:36:08

Author Profile Mail author Edit

State ponders telling feds to take regs and go away - WND

WND Staff
4-4 minutes


Committee could determine whether Washington's actions constitutional

WND Staff By WND Staff
Published February 4, 2020 at 7:48pm

(Image courtesy Pixabay)

What if your state could prosecute anyone who tries to enforce a federal requirement that a state committee regards as unconstitutional?

The state of Oklahoma now is considering a proposal that would do exactly that.

The bill has been profiled by Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center.

The 10th Amendment specifies that any powers not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution are delegated to the states.

In today's world, that could mean speed limits, gun rights, access to drugs and health insurance requirements.

National defense, the membership of Congress and presidential elections are assigned to the federal government.

The bill filed in the Oklahoma Senate "would create a mechanism to review federal laws and end state cooperation with enforcement of those determined to violate the U.S. Constitution."

Rep. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, filed Senate Bill 1477, the Oklahoma Sovereignty Act.

It would set up a "permanent joint legislative committee to review the constitutionality of federal laws; agency rules policies and standards; executive orders, federal court decisions, and treaties."

It states: "When reviewing a federal action, the committee shall consider the plain reading and reasoning of the text of the United States Constitution and the understood definitions at the time of the framing and construction of the Constitution by our forefathers before making a final declaration of constitutionality."

The Second Amendment Center noted that if the committee found a federal requirement unconstitutional, both the House and Senate would then vote, and any measure passed would need the governor's signature.

If the measure passed, the federal requirement would have "no legal effect" in the state.

And it would not be recognized by any political subdivision of the state.

No one in Oklahoma could spend money to implement it. And anyone trying to enforce it could be prosecuted.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed that Oklahoma's approach would be very effective. He said a single state refusing to cooperate with federal gun laws, for example, would make them "nearly impossible" to enforce.

The bill is based on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

It holds that the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program.

It's based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to the 1842 case of Printz v. U.S.

The majority opinion said: "We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the states' officers directly. The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page