Author Topic: Texas Bill Would Create Process to Review and Reject Unconstitutional Federal Acts  (Read 883 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Elderberry

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,408
Tenth Amendment Center

AUSTIN, Texas (March 1, 2017) – A bill introduced in the Texas House would create a mechanism to review federal laws and end state cooperation with enforcement of those determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. This process would set the stage to effectively block some federal laws and acts in the Lone Star State.

Rep. Cecil Bell (R-Magnolia) and two cosponsors introduced House Bill 2338 (HB2338), the “Texas State Sovereignty Act,” on Feb. 23. The legislation would form a permanent standing committee to review federal laws, agency rules and regulations, executive orders, federal court decisions and treaties.

    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.

Under the proposed law, if the committee determines a federal action violates the Constitution, both the full House and Senate would then vote on that determination. Passage of the resolution and the governor’s signature would constitute an official determination of unconstitutionality and would prohibit state enforcement of the act.

    (a) A federal action declared to be an unconstitutional federal action under Section 393.004 has no legal effect in this state and may not be recognized by this state or a political subdivision of this state as having legal effect.

    (b) The state and a political subdivision of the state may not spend public money or resources or incur public debt to implement or enforce a federal action declared to be an unconstitutional federal action.

    (c) A person authorized to enforce the laws of this state may enforce those laws, including Section 39.03, Penal Code, against a person who attempts to implement or enforce a federal action declared to be an unconstitutional federal action.

HB2338 tasks the state attorney general with “defending the state and its citizens to prevent the implementation and enforcement of a federal action declared to be an unconstitutional federal action.” This includes prosecution of any person who attempts to enforce such a federal action.

EFFECTIVE

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides an extremely effectively method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states. This legislation could effectively end enforcement of any federal laws deemed to violate the Constitution.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed this type of approach would be extremely effective. In a televised discussion on federal gun laws, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/03/texas-bill-would-create-process-to-review-and-reject-unconstitutional-federal-acts/

Offline Sanguine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,986
  • Gender: Female
  • Ex-member
Interesting idea.  It shouldn't be necessary, but it very much so.

Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,718
  • Gender: Male
  • Constitutional Extremist
Interesting idea.  It shouldn't be necessary, but it very much so.

Over the last several years Michigan has quietly stopped cooperating with the feds on mostly regulatory law. Agencies like the EPA have made "laws" despite their lack of authority and then bribed the states by wanting them to prosecute with the promise that the state gets to keep the fees, fines, and seized property.

The EPA came to the city of Jackson Michigan and said you can impose a rainwater tax for all of these paved parking lots and you get to keep the money as a windfall. They didn't have a problem till they tried trying to tax the county and the state for parking lots they owned within the city limits.

Michigan is now refusing to prosecute regulatory "crimes" where there is no reasonable expectation that the average layman would know he was breaking the law. (Mens Rea or no willful intent) Things like building 2 feet too close to the water or destroying the habitat of the red butted pine beetle.

Another nice thing we did within the state is eliminated building permit requirements for certain projects under $5000. For a couple of years we required a building permit for simple things like replacement windows or new water heaters.

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
It says federal laws, but not Executive Actions or federal court rulings.  These can be every bit as devastating as laws.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington