At least in N.D. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
By Jerry Burnes | Posted: Monday, January 28, 2013 10:34 am
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.”
I don't know why they are proposing a bill. Checks and Balances are very well defined and cemented in the first three (3) Articles of the Constitution of the United States of America.
But hey they is the federal government which is the "Depatment of Redundency Department"
Instead of making new legislation they should pay attention to the stuff that's already there.
__________________ "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" -Thomas Jefferson- To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)
First time poster here is a good resource I have been using to educate the masses. A small section from his book. Hope it's OK to post the link it's a free download.
Just as the term "arms" is generic and thus includes modern firearms as a whole, the term "the people" plainly means members of the populace at large. In 1990, the Supreme Court made clear that all law-abiding Americans are protected by the second amendment as follows:
"the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. ... The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the
Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and
reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law . . .
abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People
of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means
conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that(pg.93) community.8 Traditionally, the Supreme Court has paid little attention to the second amendment. It noted in the Dred Scott case that recognition of African Americans as citizens would exempt them from "police regulations"9 and allow them "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."10 During Reconstruction, the Court stated that the rights of the people "peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes"11 and "of bearing arms for a lawful purpose"12 were not granted by the Constitution because they existed long before its adoption.13 A later opinion again recognized "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"14 and repeated that the second amendment is a limitation "upon the power of Congress and the National government . . . ."15 At the turn of the century, the Court wrote concerning free speech and press and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," that "the law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we inherited from our English ancestors . . . ."16 Only in United States v. Miller17 has the high court [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]