02-19-2021, 09:06 AM
State Sen. Tom Kading, a Republican, has introduced legislation in North Dakota that would instruct the attorney general to review the constitutionality of each and every executive order signed by Joe Biden.
Since Biden is not a real president anyway, none of his EOs are valid right out of the gate. North Dakota is taking a slightly different approach, though, challenging Biden’s EOs on constitutional grounds since they far exceed the jurisdiction of the executive branch.
House Bill 1164 enumerates that EOs relating to the following issues are slated for nullification:
• Pandemics or other health emergencies
• The regulation of natural resources, including coal and oil
• The regulation of the agriculture industry
• The use of land
• The regulation of the financial sector as it relates to environmental, social, or governance standards
• The regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms
Biden’s cancelation of the Keystone XL pipeline, his federal mask mandate, and other EOs that fall into these categories all have the potential to get axed under HB1164.
Legislators in North Dakota are also proposing legislation that would allow censored citizens to sue Big Tech for violating their free speech rights.
States always have the right to fight back against federal tyranny
A related bill from State Rep. Sebastian Ertelt, also a Republican, would likewise nullify all unconstitutional legislation coming out of the federal legislative branch.
House Bill 1282 would create a “Committee on Neutralization of Federal Laws,” the job of which would be to make recommendations about which federal laws or regulations should be deemed unconstitutional.
Any federal law or recommendation recommended for nullification would be sent to the North Dakota legislature, which would then have to pass a concurrent resolution deciding whether or not to nullify it.
Following a committee recommendation, and until any resolution is passed, all state, county, and local agencies throughout North Dakota would be prohibited from enforcing the contested law or regulation.
The Constitution is the law of the land, not Biden’s EOs
As it currently stands, both HB 1164 and HB 1282 are likely to become law. North Dakota Republicans control the Senate 40 to 7, and the House 80 to 14. Chances are both will pass mostly along party lines.
South Dakota has similar legislation, known as HB 1194, in place to review the constitutionality of all presidential executive orders. Like the proposed North Dakota legislation, South Dakota’s bill lists the aforementioned six issues as points of contention.
In South Dakota, the state Senate is controlled 32 to 3 by Republicans, who also control the House, 62 to 8.
“The United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause enjoins each state to follow laws that are constitutionally sound and only on issues that the Constitution granted purview to the federal government to determine,” reports National File.
“If the federal government – be it the Executive, Legislative, or the Judicial Branch – acts unconstitutionally, the individual states have a right to ignore the transgressing edict.”
It was the late Alexander Hamilton who codified this ethic in Federalist No. 33. Even though Hamilton favored a strong central government, he recognized that individual states have every right to reject and ignore federal laws and edicts that violate the U.S. Constitution.
“Many states should do the same,” wrote one National File commenter. “Not only is Beijing Biden issuing one unconstitutional, and nation-wrecking, order after another, he’s not even a legitimate president.”
“He doesn’t even know what he is signing!” wrote another. “I wish during his EO signings someone would ask him to explain what the EO he is signing at the moment is – he has NO IDEA! Having Xiden sign EOs is just like the communist Democrats helping the aged to vote.”
Since Biden is not a real president anyway, none of his EOs are valid right out of the gate. North Dakota is taking a slightly different approach, though, challenging Biden’s EOs on constitutional grounds since they far exceed the jurisdiction of the executive branch.
House Bill 1164 enumerates that EOs relating to the following issues are slated for nullification:
• Pandemics or other health emergencies
• The regulation of natural resources, including coal and oil
• The regulation of the agriculture industry
• The use of land
• The regulation of the financial sector as it relates to environmental, social, or governance standards
• The regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms
Biden’s cancelation of the Keystone XL pipeline, his federal mask mandate, and other EOs that fall into these categories all have the potential to get axed under HB1164.
Legislators in North Dakota are also proposing legislation that would allow censored citizens to sue Big Tech for violating their free speech rights.
States always have the right to fight back against federal tyranny
A related bill from State Rep. Sebastian Ertelt, also a Republican, would likewise nullify all unconstitutional legislation coming out of the federal legislative branch.
House Bill 1282 would create a “Committee on Neutralization of Federal Laws,” the job of which would be to make recommendations about which federal laws or regulations should be deemed unconstitutional.
Any federal law or recommendation recommended for nullification would be sent to the North Dakota legislature, which would then have to pass a concurrent resolution deciding whether or not to nullify it.
Following a committee recommendation, and until any resolution is passed, all state, county, and local agencies throughout North Dakota would be prohibited from enforcing the contested law or regulation.
The Constitution is the law of the land, not Biden’s EOs
As it currently stands, both HB 1164 and HB 1282 are likely to become law. North Dakota Republicans control the Senate 40 to 7, and the House 80 to 14. Chances are both will pass mostly along party lines.
South Dakota has similar legislation, known as HB 1194, in place to review the constitutionality of all presidential executive orders. Like the proposed North Dakota legislation, South Dakota’s bill lists the aforementioned six issues as points of contention.
In South Dakota, the state Senate is controlled 32 to 3 by Republicans, who also control the House, 62 to 8.
“The United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause enjoins each state to follow laws that are constitutionally sound and only on issues that the Constitution granted purview to the federal government to determine,” reports National File.
“If the federal government – be it the Executive, Legislative, or the Judicial Branch – acts unconstitutionally, the individual states have a right to ignore the transgressing edict.”
It was the late Alexander Hamilton who codified this ethic in Federalist No. 33. Even though Hamilton favored a strong central government, he recognized that individual states have every right to reject and ignore federal laws and edicts that violate the U.S. Constitution.
“Many states should do the same,” wrote one National File commenter. “Not only is Beijing Biden issuing one unconstitutional, and nation-wrecking, order after another, he’s not even a legitimate president.”
“He doesn’t even know what he is signing!” wrote another. “I wish during his EO signings someone would ask him to explain what the EO he is signing at the moment is – he has NO IDEA! Having Xiden sign EOs is just like the communist Democrats helping the aged to vote.”
“If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”
― Voltaire
― Voltaire