Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State targets executive orders
willistonherald.com ^ | Monday, January 28, 2013 10:34 am | By Jerry Burnes |

Posted on 01/30/2013 5:43:59 PM PST by 11th_VA

North Dakota lawmakers are looking to get tough on potential direct actions taken by President Barack Obama, proposing a bill to grant the Legislature the right to review, approve or reject any executive order issued by the president.

House Bill 1428 is designed to give legislators the power to suspend orders implemented unless the orders have been upheld by a vote of Congress.

Rep. Bob Skarphol (R-Tioga) is a co-sponsor of the bill and said some members of the Legislature don’t believe in governing by executive order. He said there are checks and balances ingrained into the government for a reason, and those balances should be followed.

“It’s a serious issue with us,” Skarphol said. “If our president wants to circumvent Congress, then we’ll see it the same way as if our governor wants to circumvent us.”

He said there were no direct issues that led to the proposition of the bill. Obama recently enacted executive actions on gun control, though not handing out any direct executive orders.

Skarphol said, however, there will be some gun laws that the Legislature would not allow the North Dakota police departments to enforce.

As far as hydraulic fracturing goes, no executive orders have been made to stop or limit the drilling practice, but Skarphol said there have been rumors of some in the past.

If the Obama administration does place an executive order on fracturing, under the bill, the state could choose to ignore the action until Congress passes an official law.

“That potential exists,” Skarphol said. “The EPA does some things that some of us think go beyond the consent.”


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: North Dakota
KEYWORDS:
FUBO - I feel like moving to ND !!!
1 posted on 01/30/2013 5:44:02 PM PST by 11th_VA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA

Chicago thuggery seems to have no place in ND.


2 posted on 01/30/2013 5:51:47 PM PST by Gabrial (The nightmare will continue as long as the nightmare is in the Whitehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA

I think we will be seeing a lot more of this type of state legislative actions in the future as Obama starts really “transforming” us... or tries too...

Basically the states exercising their 10 th amendment rights...


3 posted on 01/30/2013 6:16:55 PM PST by JZoback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA

Marbury v. Madison, USSC “Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void”.

Is that really hard to understand?


4 posted on 01/30/2013 6:20:08 PM PST by Captain7seas (Fire Jane Lubchenco)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain7seas

“Is that really hard to understand?”

Not for us. But, for an affirmative action sissy-boy punk with a platinum race card and a bevy of “media” whores, it is unnecessary to understand.


5 posted on 01/30/2013 6:27:51 PM PST by jivin gene (Breakin' up is hard to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA

bttt


6 posted on 01/30/2013 6:29:01 PM PST by TEXOKIE (We must surrender only to our Holy God and never to the evil that has befallen us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZoback

More States need to do that. States shouldn’t have to let the federal govt destroy their economies and infringe on the rights of their citizens.


7 posted on 01/30/2013 6:29:14 PM PST by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA

This is very interesting, legally.

The SCOTUS has, in past, determined that federal courts have supremacy over state courts; and that congress has supremacy over state legislatures. But they have *never* found that the president has supremacy over state governors.

This means that the only way the president can enforce his will against a governor who refuses to cooperate, is with *force of arms*.

The last time this happened was when Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne division into Little Rock, to enforce desegregation of their high school. Bill Clinton’s mentor, Democrat governor Orval Faubus, had ordered out the national guard to prevent desegregation, but they backed down in the face of the 101st AB.

So does this mean that if Obama makes some repugnant Executive Order, that he will send the US Army into one or more states to enforce his will at the tip of bayonets?

It is very important to consider this right now, and poll our military to find out if they would obey such orders.


8 posted on 01/30/2013 6:46:29 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

States fighting against federal legislation and Executives Orders: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Teaxs, Utah, Oklahoma and Alabama ...

Now, another state is joining the cause to restrict federal, unconstitutional laws – Alabama. The legislation known as the “Firearms Freedom Act” or formally Senate Bill 43 would “exempt from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within the borders of Alabama.” Senate Bill 43 was introduced on January 11th and will be referred to the State Senate committee on Judiciary February 5th.

“The guaranty of [Tenth Amendment] powers is a matter of contract between the state of Alabama and its people and the United States as of the time that compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Alabama and the United States in 1819,” SB 43 explains. Tenth Amendment Center’s Shane Trejo points out, “Although this bill does not go after all possible federal restrictions on guns within Alabama, it is definitely another step in the right direction toward building resistance at the state level to malevolent power grabs from Washington D.C.”

Alabama’s SB43 goes on to state its neediness with regards to the State Constitution, “Section 26 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, secures to Alabama citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of an individual Alabama citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state.”


9 posted on 01/30/2013 6:56:15 PM PST by imemyself
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

This means that the only way the president can enforce his will against a governor who refuses to cooperate, is with *force of arms*.

Bingo, we have a Winner


10 posted on 01/30/2013 8:22:44 PM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA
Hats off to North Dakota ! One of Obeyme's unintended consequences will be to reaffirm states rights, I predict, to the level they haven't been since the days of Lincoln. (pre-Lincoln)

Obeyme has always been a fan of Honest Abe. What beautiful symmetry.

11 posted on 01/30/2013 8:25:21 PM PST by chiller (Do not consume any NBCNews;MTPTodayNightlyNewsMorningJoeMSNBCBrianWilliams sts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jivin gene

I’ see this clown and just see a sissy homo boy . He has somehjng against a manly man and seems to love to be a fairy homo low info dumb voters gave us thus turd poker along with aa voter fraud and a cowardly GOP.


12 posted on 01/31/2013 6:37:16 AM PST by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jivin gene

I’ see this clown and just see a sissy homo boy . He has somehjng against a manly man and seems to love to be a fairy homo low info dumb voters gave us thus turd poker along with aa voter fraud and a cowardly GOP.


13 posted on 01/31/2013 6:37:28 AM PST by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Captain7seas; All

It depends upon what your definition of “repugnant” is...

Believe me, they are already prepared to address that repugnancy once it is brought up... I just feel there is not going to be enough representation to fight off the wolves where this battle needs to be kept...

And they are hedging their bets that we the people will not fight back when the time comes...What an absolute poor assumption on their part...

I hope it never comes to that...


14 posted on 01/31/2013 7:47:07 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (It's not the color of one's skin that offends people...it's how thin it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA

We are doing here in Pennsylvania:http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2013&sind=0&body=H&type=B&bn=0357


15 posted on 01/31/2013 7:49:24 AM PST by patriotsblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Or a blatant withholding of all federal funds across the board and establish tariffs against goods coming from “problem states”.


16 posted on 01/31/2013 8:28:42 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson