Posted on 12/06/2010 6:52:12 AM PST by kingattax
A Republican senator is planning on introducing legislation this week that would allow state officials to challenge federal regulations before they go into effect.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) told The Hill that his states'-rights bill is in large part a reaction to Democrats' healthcare reform law, which Republicans claim would create 159 "boards, commissions, bureaus, programs and offices of the federal government." That figure may be open to debate, but states have certainly raised concerns with the law, with 43 so far joining in legal challenges or taking other action to prevent certain provisions from taking effect.
"That's certainly a statute that invites a lot of regulatory overreach, which could be reviewed and challenged on an expedited basis with this legislation," Wicker told The Hill.
The proposed law could also be used to challenge other regulations, such as those from the Environmental Protection Agency, he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
the dems will compare this to the claim of state’s rights to preserve slavery in . . . 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
“States Rights” code word for racism. /sarc
Now I understand that "states rights" refers to the 9th and 10th amendments. We conservatives need to press the issue home that those two amendments, if properly enforced, sharply limit the federal government. However neither amendment mentions the term. The reason the use of this term is a constant loser is because individuals know inherently that no government has "rights." Governments derive their power by the consent of the governed.
Suggestion: argue for state autonomy. Argue for state sovereignty. But please, when using the term "rights," apply it only to individuals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.