Jackson Free Press

U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker said he intends to undermine a federal health-care reform law President Barack Obama signed this year by introducing a bill this week allowing state officials to challenge federal regulations.

Tara DiJulio, communications director for Wicker, said the senator should be introducing his bill as early as tomorrow or Thursday, because of an impeachment hearing regarding U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous Jr., of Louisiana.

DiJulio said the Senate will address Wicker's "10th Amendment Regulatory Reform Act," which would allow state officials to challenge any federal agency rule proposal, if they can argue that the rule infringes on powers reserved to the states under the Constitution's 10th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment, also known as the States' Rights Amendment, declares that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or individuals. Southern lawmakers used the 10th Amendment as the basis for their argument in the 1960s against the federal government's prohibitions against apartheid in the South. Human rights associations, such as the NAACP, still interpret many "state's rights" issues as disguised references to segregation.

Tougaloo professor Stephen Rozman said the bill sounds like a throwback to 10th Amendment arguments preceding the Civil War.

"Why don't they just call it interposition again, where the state can interpose its will based upon the 10th Amendment? Then, if the federal government keeps giving us trouble, we can simply form a separate state," he said. "… This thing sounds like interposition where some states imposed their will to cut off federal action prior to the Civil War. This sounds like a modified version of that."

Rozman also referenced the irony of a southern senator submitting the action.

DiJulio said Wicker already plans to support measures next year to repeal the health-care bill, which Wicker says puts too many new costs upon economically strapped states—even though the federal government will cover 90 percent of new costs, according to the White House.

Wicker has yet to submit his bill, but DiJulio said the bill will press the call for states' rights by helping states challenge regulations such as "Obamacare" and new Environmental Protection Agency regulations seeking to cap newly established pollutants such as carbon, mercury, sulfide dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

The senator joins Republicans and other utility-industry advocates in arguing that the new EPA rules will force owners of many coal-burning plants to install expensive upgrades that remove mercury and other poisons from facilities' exhaust systems.

The legislation would require a federal agency to post legal briefs and comments of senior state officials who disagree with new legislation and regulation on the front page of the federal agency's website. If the federal agency does not agree with the senior state officials, Wicker's act requires the federal agency to respond to the state official's argument with a legal brief explaining their reason for disagreeing, which must also be posted on the front page of the federal agency's website.

The legislation would mandate an expedited appeal process for senior state officials if the federal district court rules against their case.

Previous Comments

ID

161211

Comment

So is this just political theater, or does the senator really believe in nullification? Given the bill's chances of passing, one suspects the former, but sheesh. Why not a bill banning shariah law?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-12-07T14:46:40-06:00

ID

161216

Comment

Great - more reason to be totally embarrassed to be a Mississippian. ... anyone else aware of "The Coffee Party movement" ?

Author

BobbyKearan

Date

2010-12-08T06:27:27-06:00

ID

161217

Comment

It's okay to play nice when you want to receive earmarks But not when you have to abide by the rules and play the game like everybody else!? WOW! What a start to the day already

Author

Duan C.

Date

2010-12-08T07:31:48-06:00

ID

161221

Comment

By the way, Wicker is talking about doing away with the Clean Air Act, though of course he won't come right out and say it. But do the math. He wants to use states' rights (nullification) to overturn EPA regulations on such pollutants as mercury and sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain. It is not as if the EPA just decided it had the authority to regulate mercury. Congress gave the EPA that authority in the Clean Air Act. So Wicker is implicitly arguing that the Clean Air Act is unconstitutional. If so, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and most other federal environmental laws would be unconstitutional as well. Of course, the courts long ago found otherwise, and people overwhelmingly support this legislation, much of which was signed into law by President Nixon. But the Republican Party ain't what it used to be. I do hope his constituents will call Sen. Wicker and let him know what they think of this proposal.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2010-12-08T12:17:52-06:00