Posted on 02/10/2015 4:32:40 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
State legislators around the country have introduced more than 200 bills aiming to nullify regulations and laws coming out of Washington, D.C., as they look to rein in the federal government.
The legislative onslaught, which includes bills targeting federal restrictions on firearms, experimental treatments and hemp, reflects growing discord between the states and Washington, state officials say.
“You have a choice,” said Kentucky state Rep. Diane St. Onge (R). “To sit back and not do anything or say anything and let overregulation continue — or you have the alternative choice to speak up about it and say, ‘We know what you are doing or intend to do and we do not think that it is constitutional and we as a state are not going to stand for it.’ ”
Last month, St. Onge introduced H.B. 13 to nullify federal gun control laws within Kentucky state lines. Similar legislation has been introduced in seven other states.
“This law is saying the sheriff and those under him do not have to follow federal regulations,” she said.
Friction between the states and the federal government dates back to the nation’s earliest days. But there has been an explosion of bills in the last year, according to the Los Angeles-based Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates for the state use of nullification to tamp down on overzealous regulation.
“People are becoming more and more concerned about the overreach of the federal government,” said center spokesman Mike Maharrey. “They feel the federal government is trying to do too much, it’s too big and it’s getting more and more in debt.”
The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights reserves to the states powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. States have long used it as a tool to protect themselves against regulations.
Though federal law trumps state law, Maharrey said states are learning to exercise their own power by pushing back.
Without the resources to enforce its laws, the federal government is forced to rely on state action. When states refuse, federal law becomes virtually unenforceable, he said.
“States were always intended to be a check on federal power,” Maharrey said.
The National Conference of State Legislatures, which monitors action in the country’s statehouses, could not confirm the center’s 200-plus bill count, though a spokesman said there is a vocal movement behind the notion that some issues are best left to the states.
“It is often said states are the laboratories of democracy and the Tenth Amendment is something we at NCSL advocate for on behalf of states every day,” spokesman Mick Bullock said in a statement.
West Virginia and 19 other states, for instance, have introduced legislation to allow terminally ill patients to have access to investigational products that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Included on the list are Oregon, California, Utah, Texas, Virginia, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Indiana and Tennessee.
In Florida, state Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda (D) has introduced a bill that would legalize and regulate the production of hemp in the Sunshine State; a similar effort appears stalled at the federal effort.
Rehwinkel Vasilinda said if Congress won’t act, she will.
“All politics is local and we try to solve problems at the local level,” she said. “We have the authority to solve our own problems at the state and local levels — that’s what is great about the United States.”
Republican members of Congress say the spike in state nullification bills is a natural response to the current administration.
“I think it’s due to the frustration with an out of control president who seems to be expanding federal power through executive action,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “Obama’s not bringing us together he’s dividing us further. This is an example of how we’re being divided.”
Though there are constitutional limits, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said, states have the right to act when Congress won’t.
“They have a lot of rights to move ahead in a lot of discrete areas when they are confronted with paralysis here,” he said. “We set a floor on a lot of things, they can always exceed it.”
In Virginia, conservatives are pushing for states to invoke Article 5 of the Constitution and hold a “convention of states” to restrict the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.
The group Citizens for Self-Government is leading the charge, and three states — Alaska, Georgia and Florida — have already passed resolutions calling for the convention.
Another 26 states are considering legislation this year, according to the group’s president, Mark Meckler. It would take 34 states to call a convention.
“The citizens of this country believe Washington, D.C. has exceeded its boundaries,” he said. “Article 5 is the only method available to us to push back.”
At the convention, Meckler said the states would work to pass amendments that impose fiscal restraints, regulatory restrictions and term limits on federal officials, including members of the Supreme Court.
“We’ll have [Article 5] applications pending in 41 states within the next few weeks,” he said. “The goal is to hold a convention in 2016.”
On Monday, former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) announced he is joining the Convention of States Project as a senior adviser.
“Our Founders anticipated the federal government might get out of control at some point, and they gave us a Constitutional mechanism to rein it in,” he said in a statement. “Many in Washington have unfortunately forgotten they work for the American people, and the people have begun to mobilize in this effective effort from coast to coast.”
Sadly, the federal judiciary negates any attempt at reversing the perversion eminating from Washington, D.C.
And what kind of army does this “judiciary” have to enforce any laws?
It takes a willing and/or complicit citizenry to permit such grievances to continue unabated...
Lifetime appointments prevent ANYTHING from happening in the Judiciary of any meaningful consequence.
Nullification won’t work until ONE governor tells Fedzilla to take a flying leap and REFUSES to transmit tax dollars collected to DC...
You mean they can't be impeached?
Yes... Just like Obama
Being a leftist a$$hat and ruling as such doesn’t pass the impeachment standard...
Nullification will take a state executive and legislature to withhold MONEY to get DC’s attention.
Sadly, there are none that are willing...
Yabut, impeaching a dirty judge does not create a "Constitutional crisis". Every US citizen is a criminal including these RAT-judges.
Paging Trey Gowdy.
This is a good read for all you Article V Freepers who don’t think the 10th Ammendment can save the Republic.
This is a good read for all you Article V Freepers who don’t think the 10th Ammendment can save the Republic.
Both are arrows in the quiver.
“At least the American people will be more careful the next time some shyster candidate says all the right things and promises them everything”
I admire your optimism.
Federalist/Anti-Federalist ping. Interesting article.
This is how it should be...when Congress refuses to exercise their Constitutional authority... the last chance...before the shooting starts...
5.56mm
Don't let anyone tell you state nullification of unconstitutional laws is unconstitutional. It is supported by the Supremacy Clause (Art VI, Sec 2) and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
At some point soon, state legislators need to roll up their sleeves and begin working on the unconstitutionality of
1) The Incorporation Doctrine of the 14A (nullification reestablishes state supremacy to bring back, at the state's discretion, prayer and Bible in state schools, freedom to choose, anti-abortion laws, gun protection, and anti-gay marriage laws among other things).
2) The expansion of the Commerce Clause (nullification invalidates things like Obamacare and millions of unconstitutional, useless business regulations)
3) The nullification of the Necessary and Proper Clause (proper restoration destroys unconstitutional multi-trillion dollar Administrative State).
Followed closely by a review of whether the 16th Amendment was actually constitutionally ratified. If not nuke the income tax and the states (the people of the state) pay tax to the feds per capita as the Constitution instructs.
If the 17th Amendment was properly ratified, then have it repealed at an Article V Convention of States.
This needs to be brought to a head. Let the states ignore bad laws by the Feds. Let the Feds send troops if need be. As long as we are in the right...we will have the moral high ground.
I never thought that the 10th couldn't — however, it is stupid to think that we can really reform taxation w/o a Constitutional amendment just because of how entrenched the agencies (IRS) and the tangential work generated from it (lawyers, regulatory agencies, accountants, etc) make it.
More, we also need real Constitutional limits on the amount of debt that may be incurred, and the only realistic way to do that is to constrain the currency to a physical medium [i.e. Gold] and make the amount of possible debt dependent on how much they physically have on-hand. (With you lose your job and retirement benefits
for government agents confiscating this physical substance.)
Hark! Did I hear somebody mention Obamacare and federal business regulations in the context of the Commerce Clause? In case you have not seen the following information, you may find it interesting.
I stumbled over the Supreme Court case of Paul v. Virginia the other day. Here’s a very interesting excerpt from that case.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Viirginia, 1869.
It has been pointed out concerning the excerpt above that the Supremes had essentially clarified that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (1.8.3) doesn’t give the feds the power to regulate insurance. So I’m adding the excerpt to the list of excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions which indicate that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.
Note that the 1st and 4th points in the following list address unconstitutional federal healthcare and the unconstitutional federal healthcare insurance mandate in the context of the Commerce Clause.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
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.