You asked for a list and the status of legislative proposals introduced in 2009 concerning state sovereignty. You also wanted to know if any of these proposals have been enacted.

SUMMARY

At least 35 states have proposed bills, resolutions, or joint memorials declaring state sovereignty and defining certain activities to be subject only to state law, and not federal regulation. Of these, resolutions have passed both houses of the legislature in four states: Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. The resolutions are currently with the secretary of state in Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The governor of Oklahoma vetoed that state's sovereignty bill but the legislature overrode the veto with a concurrent resolution, which is currently before President Obama and Congress. Connecticut is among the 15 remaining states without such a proposed bill this session.

STATE SOVEREIGNTY PROPOSED BILLS

At least 35 states have proposed bills, resolutions, or joint memorials concerning state sovereignty and federal regulation, as shown in Table 1. Each cites the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Language of the Passed Bills

The state sovereignty resolutions passed both houses in only four states: Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Each resolution:

1. cites the Tenth Amendment and declares that any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved for the states;

2. asserts that the scope of power defined in the Tenth Amendment meant for the federal government to be an agent of the states, however, “in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government”;

3. cites New York v. United States, in which the Supreme Court declared that Congress may not commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states (505 U.S. 144 (1992));

4. states that it is to “serve as a notice and demand to the federal government . . . to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers”;

5. declares that several federal laws violate the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and

6. asserts that “proposals from the previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate” the U.S. Constitution (H.J.M. 4, 60th Leg., 1^st Reg. Sess. (Idaho 2009); H.C.R. 3063, 61st Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.D. 2009); H.C.R. 1028, 52nd Leg., Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2009); H.C.R. 1013, 84th Sess. (S.D. 2009)).

The resolutions in Idaho, Oklahoma, and South Dakota also state that any legislation that “directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”

Idaho's House joint memorial also states that “Congress has inappropriately delegated its monetary authority to the private federal reserve bank, thus failing to protect and provide a sound monetary system as defined and mandated by the Constitution of the United States, forcing an unstable currency on us resulting in past, and the current, economic perils.”

South Dakota's House concurrent resolution states that all Congressional acts, judicial orders, and executive orders that assume a power not delegated by the U.S. Constitution “and which serves to diminish the liberty” of a state or its citizens “constitutes a nullification of the Constitution . . . .”

TABLE 1: STATES' PROPOSED BILLS FOR STATE SOVEREIGNTY INTRODUCED IN 2009

Table 1 Continued

Table 1 Continued

JLR:ak