Two bills, both attempting to reassert state sovereignty over environmental regulations, will be considered in Virginia’s 2011 legislative session. The first, House bill 1357 (HB1357) addresses the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions specifically, while the second, House Bill 1397 (HB1397) seeks to protect Virginia homeowners from potential cap and trade requirements.Details
A flurry of Health Care Freedom Acts – both as bills and resolutions for state constitutional amendments – have been prefiled for the 2011 legislative session in Texas. As of this writing, there are currently 7 that have been introduced. The following are the bill numbers, links to the full text, and a brief overview of the direction of the legislation:
House Bill 32 (HB32)
No resident of this state, regardless of whether he has or is eligible for health insurance coverage under any policy or program provided by or through his employer, or a plan sponsored by the state or the federal government, shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage except as required by a court or a governmental agency or department where an individual is named a party in a judicial or administrative proceeding. No provision of this title shall render a resident of this state liable for any penalty, assessment, fee, or fine as a result of his failure to procure or obtain health insurance coverage.
House Bill 124 (HB124)
This state, an agency of this state, or a health care system may not:
(1) impose a fine or penalty on an individual or the individual’s employer for direct payment for a health care service;
(2) impose a fine or penalty on a health care provider for accepting direct payment for a health care service; or
House Bill 144 (HB144)Details
The Texas legislature, back in action for the first time since the 2009 legislative session, is getting things rolling in regards to 10th Amendment legislation for the 2011 session. Two resolutions affirming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment were prefiled on the first possible day, 11-08-10.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 (SCR1) was introduced by Senator Glenn Hegar, and House Concurrent Resolution 16 (HCR16) was introduced by Representative Brandon Creighton, whose HCR50 brought the issue and the discussion to the national limelight in 2009.
Both include similar language to assert a proper constitutional role for the state, such as:
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more
RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers
SCR1 takes a stronger position and alludes to a proper next step for the State, including:
RESOLVED, That the power over the freedom of the right to keep and bear arms was reserved to the states, and therefore, all acts of Congress to abridge that right are not law and are void; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed;
Those who oppose the drive to reassert local control over those powers not delegated to the feds in the Constitution will often brush off state-level attempts by yelling “supremacy clause, supremacy clause, supremacy clause!”
They take the position that if the federal government does something – anything they don’t oppose that is – that we have to take it and obey it. No matter what. During the Bush years, people who took this position were generally from the right. These days, they’re almost exclusively from the political left.
I recently got an email from someone who brought this concept up – in what I thought was an obvious way. Here’s our exchange:
The initial email:
What is the clause in the Constitution that allows what you describe as “nullification”? The Supremacy Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause) clearly establishes the superiority of federal law over state law.