What's new

MT gives "fanger" to Biden

Norm

Newb
Joined
May 21, 2020
Member Number
904
Messages
841
Loc
Cold North
:grinpimp:

"HELENA
, Mont. (April 4, 2021) – On Thursday, the Montana House gave final approval to a bill that would create a mechanism to review presidential executive orders and end state cooperation with enforcement of certain orders determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. This process would set the stage to nullify some executive orders in practice and effect in Montana.

Sen. Tom McGillvray (R-Billings) introduced Senate Bill 277 (SB277) on Feb. 25. Under the proposed law, the legislative council would have the authority to review any executive order issued by the President of the United States, if the order “has not been affirmed by a vote of the Congress of the United States and signed into law, as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States.”

Upon a recommendation by the executive committee the state attorney general would be required to review the executive order. Under the law, the state, a political subdivision of the state, or an organization receiving public funds from the state, would be prohibited from implementing any executive order that the attorney general determines to be unconstitutional during the review.

The law would cover executive orders that relate to any of the following:
  • A pandemic or other public health emergency;
  • The regulation of natural resources;
  • The regulation of the agricultural industry;
  • The regulation of land use;
  • The regulation of the financial sector through the imposition of environmental, social, or governance standards; or
  • Any regulation affecting the constitutional rights of state residents, including but not limited to the right to keep and bear arms.
On April 1, the House passed SB277 by a 59-38 vote. The Senate previously passed SB277 by a 31-19 vote. The bill now goes to Gov. Greg Gianforte for his consideration.

The enactment of SB277 would provide a process to push back against overreaching executive authority. Immediately upon a determination of unconstitutionality by the AG, the state would be required to withdraw all resources and cease any cooperation with enforcement or implementation of the action. Because the feds lack the resources to enforce all of their laws and run all of their programs, this would likely be enough to effectively end the federal action in Montana in most situations, nullifying it in effect.

This cumbersome process isn’t even necessary. Montana could simply ban enforcement of EOs without any determination of constitutionality.

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 effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.

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.”

LEGAL BASIS

The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing or implementing certain federal acts rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program – whether constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”​

No determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not."
 
The law would cover executive orders that relate to any of the following:
  • A pandemic or other public health emergency;
  • The regulation of natural resources;
  • The regulation of the agricultural industry;
  • The regulation of land use;
  • The regulation of the financial sector through the imposition of environmental, social, or governance standards; or
  • Any regulation affecting the constitutional rights of state residents, including but not limited to the right to keep and bear arms.
Any ideas why they called these out, specifically? Instead of "all executive orders?" Just curious.
 
i forgot i wanted to look into this question of mine awhile ago

when did executive orders start to get abused?
 
i forgot i wanted to look into this question of mine awhile ago

when did executive orders start to get abused?

Obama tried to use them as legislation constantly. I don't recall W or Clinton ever really doing that.

People bitch about the amount issued, but that's not really the issue. They're supposed to be directives on how agencies under the Executive operate. The issue is when President's try to use them to bypass the Legislative process.

Regarding the Second, the big problem with the ATF is too many laws and regs are left too open to their interpretation and the selective enforcement that comes with it.
 
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signs bill to defy any new federal gun control laws


NEWS

The legislation was drawn up after President Joe Biden assumed office

CARLOS GARCIA
April 06, 2021

Photo by Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox.SIGN UP
Republican Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona signed a bill on Tuesday that would ban local governments and employees from enforcing or aiding any infringement on gun rights imposed by the federal government.


POLL: What scares you the most?


House Bill 2111 was passed by the Arizona House and Senate in an attempt to preempt any new regulation of guns by the Biden administration.

"The state of Arizona and its political subdivisions are prohibited from utilizing any financial resources or state personnel to administer, cooperate with or enforce any law, act, order, rule, treaty or regulation of the federal government that is inconsistent with any law of this state regarding the regulation of firearms," read the text of the legislation.


Biden has promised to seek a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines in the wake of several mass killings after he assumed office.

Critics of the bill included Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone who said there was a "political motivation" behind it.





"It's one of those emotional issues but as far as the impact on law enforcement, it will create confusion or challenges more than benefits or protecting the Second Amendment," Penzone said to KTAR radio on Thursday.

Others say that the law will lead to litigation that will have to be paid with taxpayer money. Moms Demand Action, a gun control advocacy group, gathered over 2,400 signatures opposing the bill and presented them to Ducey's office hours before he signed it into law.

Democratic Arizona state Sen. Lisa Otondo assured gun owners that their rights were safe.

"Nobody is trying to take away your guns, not for the protection of your family, your property, nor your Second Amendment right to own them,'' Otondo said.

Despite those assurances, gun sales have skyrocketed first over fears of instability from the pandemic lockdowns and later when President Joe Biden was elected.
 
i forgot i wanted to look into this question of mine awhile ago

when did executive orders start to get abused?

The numbers really jumped starting with Ulysses S. Grant (R). 217

Then this.............................

Theodore Roosevelt (R)Total1,0811457.47
William Howard Taft (R)Total7241814.00
Woodrow Wilson (D)Total1,8032258.00
Warren G. Harding (R)Total5222172.41
Calvin Coolidge (R)Total1,2032155.59
Herbert Hoover (R)Total9682424.005075 - 6070
Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)Total3,72130712.126071 - 9537
Harry S. Truman (D)Total9071177.789538 - 10431


It died down after that until

William J. Clinton (D) 364



Executive Orders | The American Presidency Project (ucsb.edu)
 
Interesting, some of them dudes had them whipping out. Be be interesting to know what they addressed if there was a way to break that down.
 
Talking like the bug (edgar suit) from MIB(1).

You dont get it.

Correct your status and federal law can get fucked.

Once you have done this you have nullified Federal law.

Once you are no longer a US aka Federal citizen federal laws dont apply to you!!

If the several states can do it why cant you as you have only been repeating the lies you were told, so your excuse is, I didnt know the 14th amdt was a offer to contract,

did you know ?


That's badass! Nullification of federal law is the way to go!
 
Last edited:
If the several states can do it why cant you as you hace only been repeating the lies you were told so your excuse is I didnt know the 14th amdt was a offer to contract, did you know ?

What language is this?
 
Top Back Refresh