Should the Constitution Let Two-Thirds of the States Repeal Federal Regulations or Executive Actions? (H. Joint Res. 32)
Do you support or oppose this bill?
What is H. Joint Res. 32?
(Updated June 7, 2019)
This resolution would propose an amendment to the Constitution that would allow two-thirds of the states to vote to repeal, in whole or in part: presidential executive orders, rules, regulations, other regulatory actions, or administrative rulings issued by a federal agency. States would have to approve resolutions describing the provisions to be repealed.
As a joint resolution that proposes a constitutional amendment, the president’s signature wouldn’t be required for this to be enacted. Rather, at least three-fourths of the states — currently 38 — must ratify the amendment for it to take effect.
Argument in favor
States should have the authority to repeal a federal rule or regulation if two-thirds of all states vote to do so to prevent overreach by the executive branch, and this bill proposes an amendment to the Constitution that’d let that happen.
Argument opposed
Given the number of small states, it’d be unwise to allow a two-thirds majority of states to overturn federal rules and regulations as it’d interfere with executive branch agencies’ ability to do their jobs.
Impact
State legislatures; executive branch actions; and the Constitution.
Cost of H. Joint Res. 32
A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.
Additional Info
In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) introduced this resolution to propose a constitutional amendment that’d allow two-thirds of all state legislatures to repeal a federal rule or regulation:
“The founding fathers crafted the Constitution to include the concept of checks and balances. Those checks and balances are not simply to provide horizontal protections, but also to ensure there are vertical safeguards between state and federal governments. This amendment halts the erosion of federalism that has chipped away at states’ powers for the past five decades. This is a tool for states to use when the executive branch of government goes too far.”
Sanford Levinson, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas, told this proposed amendment is “a really terrible idea” because of the power it’d give states:
“You can bet the ranch that there are enough state legislators in the large states who will not consider it a good idea to reinforce the power of small parochial rural states in which most Americans do not live.”
This legislation has the support of three cosponsors, including Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Collin Peterson (D-MN), and Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)..
Media:
-
Sponsoring Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) Press Release (Previous Version)
-
New York Times (Previous Version)
-
Cato Institute (Previous Version - In Favor)
Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: filo / iStock)The Latest
-
IT: Should the U.S. implement a tax on AI to fund worker benefits, and... 🔥Are you ready to take action against climate change?Welcome to Friday, March 29th, readers and observers... Should the U.S. government implement a new tax on AI to fund displaced read more...
-
🌎 Are You Ready To Take Action Against Climate Change?Scientists claim that last year "smashed" the record for the hottest year by a large margin , offering a "dramatic testimony" of read more... Environment
-
Should U.S. Implement a New Tax on AI to Fund Worker Benefits?The debate As technology advances, artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more integrated into our society. While leaders in AI read more... Artificial Intelligence
-
SCOTUS Hears Arguments of Abortion Pill Mifepristone CaseUpdated March 27, 2024, 12:30 p.m. EST On Tuesday, March 26, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the mifepristone case, read more... Women's Health