You can as well track your own state's legislation here for free.
By Pat Shannan
North
Dakota has opened a new front in the battle against federal meddling. This
time the state’s lawmakers are taking direct shots at not only the current
administration but all executive orders issued by past administrations.
N.D.’s H.B. 1428 is currently pending in the state Legislature. It
is designed to give state legislators the power to suspend orders implemented
unless the orders have been upheld by Congress.
“We don’t
believe in governing by executive order,” said State Representative Bob
Skarphol (R), speaking for himself and other state
legislators. “There are checks and balances ingrained into the government for
a reason, and these should be followed.”
Skarphol
further asserted that the N.D. Legislature would not allow its state’s
police departments to enforce some of the proposed federal gun laws, should
they be imposed.
According
to Skarphol, a line was drawn following the recent harsh threats from Vice
President Joe Biden, who warned that President Barack Obama could institute
gun control via executive order. This prompted concerns of new federal
regulations being forced upon the Peace Garden State.
The debate
over gun control in N.D. spilled into discussion on other issues such as
Environmental Protection Agency interventions and federal drilling
regulations that have upset locals.
N.D.’s
pending bill may be moot, however, as federal laws require Congress to weigh
in on national emergencies.
Former
United States Representative Dan Hamburg (D-Calif.) stated in October 2012,
“Congress and the judiciary, as well as public opinion, can restrain the
executive [branch] regarding emergency powers, but nothing of the sort has
occurred.”
According
to the National Emergencies Act, which was signed into law by President Gerald Ford
on September 14, 1976, Congress is required to review emergencies declared by
presidents. Specifically, “not later than six months after a national
emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period
thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet
to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency
shall be terminated.”
The next
question is, which of the executive orders would be tied to
“emergency powers”—thereby requiring congressional review twice a
year?
On September
18, 2001, The Washington Times reported, “Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on
Friday, President Bush activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including
those allowing him to impose censorship and martial law.”
Can
Attorney General Eric Holder make a case that America is still resisting
foreign invasion more than a decade after the attacks of 9-11?
“Congress
has failed to obey its own law, a fact that casts doubt on the legality of
the state of emergency,” said Hamburg.
Under the
powers delegated by many emergency statutes, the president may seize
property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities,
assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all
transportation and communications, regulate the operation of private enterprise
and restrict travel, all of which amounts to unrestrained control of the
lives of all citizens.
N.D. will
have none of it, though.
“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.”
Source
