(16) In counties in which the school board members represent districts, it should be required that each member of that county's Board of Education to be elected by ONLY by the voters in the district that he or she will serve and NOT by a county-wide election.
**** Items #13 - 16 were taken from "An Open Letter to NC General Assembly," written by Rick Hopkins, in the Daily Compass (week of February 11. 2021
(17) The North Carolina state legislature should follow the lead of the South Dakota state legislature:
A new bill, HB 1194, has been introduced by newly-elected Republican state Rep. Aaron Aylward, in South Dakota's Republican-controlled House of Representatives aims to give the state's attorney general the power to reject any executive order issued by a US President deemed to be unconstitutional.
What exactly does the new bill authorize?
First, it creates
"The Executive Board of the Legislative Research Council," which has the authority to review any executive order issued by the President of the United States. Rep. Aylward hopes to rein in the president's executive power by authorizing the state to review certain executive orders that
"restrict a person's rights."
Second, as the bill's text reads:
"the 'Board' may review any executive order issued by the President of the United States, if the order has not been affirmed by a vote of the Congress of the United States and signed into law, as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States."
Third, and according to the language of the bill:
"Upon review, the Executive Board may recommend to the attorney general and the Governor that the order be further examined by the attorney general to determine the constitutionality of the order and to determine whether the state should seek an exemption from the application of the order or seek to have the order declared to be an unconstitutional exercise of legislative authority by the President."
Under HB 1194, the state's attorney general would be able to exempt South Dakota from the any executive order
"that restricts a person's rights" or is determined
"to be unconstitutional" as long as the order relates to the following:
(a) A pandemic or other public health emergency
(b) The regulation of natural resources
(c) The regulation of the agricultural industry
(d) The regulation of land use
(e) The regulation of the financial sector through the imposition of environmental, social, or governance standards, or
(f) The regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms
HB 1194 is not a per-se partisan bill. As Rep. Aylward insists: The legislation is not just a response to recent action from Biden, but is intended to push back against the steady expansion of executive power in the U.S. in general. In other words, it is a patriotic bill designed to put force behind the government scheme of federalism, to give enforcement power to the Tenth Amendment, and ultimately to resist the abuses and growing power (usurped powers) by the federal government.
"This isn't just a President Biden issue but rather an overall executive overreach issue that we've been experiencing for a long time," Rep. Aylward said.
"The U.S. Congress has abdicated their duty for a long time in different areas. This bill is simply setting up a process to nullify acts that would be unconstitutional. When looking at the U.S. Constitution, the President only has the powers that are laid out in Article II."
He continued to make the case that, if signed into law, the bill would go a long way toward restoring federalism in the country and for South Dakota specifically. As he put it:
"If this were to pass, it would give South Dakota much of its power back. Per the Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, the powers of the federal government need to line up with what is laid out in the document."
[Reference: Phil Shiver,
"South Dakota Republican Introduces Bill to Reject Biden's Executive Orders, Blaze Media, February 9, 2021. https://www.theblaze.com/news/south-dakota-bill-reject-biden-executive-orders
(18) The North Carolina state legislature should follow the lead of the North Dakota state legislature:
"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people, and they have a right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require." -- Sec. 2, North Dakota Declaration of Rights
As the federal government in 1798 teetered dangerously close to what James Madison considered a vast misuse of its powers under the Constitution, he authored the Virginia Resolution. (The Virginia Resolution of 1798).
The resolution affirmed that
"in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."
The North Dakota legislature is putting forth 2 new bills designed to exert its state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and to resist the ever-encroaching and always aggressive federal government from stomping on the rights, livelihood, and enjoyment of the citizens of that state. The two bills are HB 1164 and HB 1282. The first addresses the constitutionality of executive orders issued by the President of the United States, and the second addresses the constitutionality of laws passed by the US Congress.
A group of North Dakota legislators have taken up the call for states to reassert control over the Constitution, as the Biden regime continues to rule by executive fiat, often promulgating unconstitutional orders infringing upon civil rights. This is the key to thwarting a wholesale slide into national despotism and ensuring that there are some places for Americans to go and enjoy the blessings of liberty. The question is whether leaders in those legislative chambers as well as Gov. Doug Burgum will pick up the mantle, not to mention Republicans in other states.
Recently, representatives Tom Kading, Matthew Ruby, and 7 other Republicans in the North Dakota House introduced HB 1164, which would task the attorney general with reviewing the constitutionality of the president's executive orders. If any of his orders are deemed to be unlawful, this bill would prohibit any state or county agency or publicly funded organization from enforcing the edict.
The list of issues covered under the bill are:
(a) Pandemics or other health emergencies.
(b) The regulation of natural resources, including coal and oil.
(c) The regulation of the agriculture industry.
(d) The use of land.
(e) The regulation of the financial sector as it relates to environmental, social, or governance standards.
(f) The regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
According to HB 1164, (a)
"The legislative management may review any executive order issued by the president of the United States which has not been affirmed by a vote of the Congress of the United States and signed into law as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States and recommend to the attorney general and the governor that the executive order be further reviewed," the bill said.
(b)
"Upon recommendation from the legislative management, the attorney general shall review the executive order to determine the constitutionality of the order and whether the state should seek an exemption from the application of the order or seek to have the order declared to be an unconstitutional exercise of legislative authority by the president," the bill reads.
According to Rep. Ruby:
"Ruling by executive order is a disease that must be cured."
He continued:
"I would've supported it whether it was Trump or Bush or Obama - any of them. I really think there's a huge difference between going through Congress and getting something passed compared to, you didn't get your way so you're putting it in as an executive order."
The impetus for the bills, according to Daniel Horowitz of The Blaze, Republican North Dakota state legislators, and many others, is that
"the Biden regime continues to rule by executive fiat, often promulgating unconstitutional orders infringing upon civil rights."
Horowitz characterized the legislation as
"the key to thwarting a wholesale slide into national despotism and ensuring that there are some places for Americans to go and enjoy the blessings of liberty."
To put this new bill in perspective, the first challenge under this new bill might be Biden's recent mask mandate, which unconstitutionally prohibits humans breathing without cloths on their mouths and noses inside any public transportation, including in-state ride-shares and taxis. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) created an entire criminal offense for something that never passed Congress. This, as one can easily recognize, is unconstitutional and ripe for a reign of tyranny.
HB 1164 is a great start to challenge a President's use of Executive Orders as a way to legislate (or to adjudicate).
But North Dakota didn't stop there. What if Congress decides to pass a bill that is unconstitutional? HB 1282, which was introduced by Rep. Sebastian Ertelt, would take this a step farther by proposing a
"Committee on Neutralization of Federal Laws" to recommend whether a given law or regulation is unconstitutional. Legislators are calling it
"A Committee on Nullification." Upon the recommendation of this committee, consisting of state legislative leadership and their appointees, the legislature would pass a concurrent resolution on whether to nullify the law or edict. Until the resolution is passed, state and county agencies would be prohibited from enforcing the law or regulation at issue.
The bill requires:
(a)
"Upon receipt of federal legislation, regulation, or an executive order, for consideration and process, the committee shall recommend whether to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law, regulation, or executive order. In making its recommendation, the committee shall consider whether the legislation, regulation, or executive order is outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States," the bill reads.
(b)
"The committee may review all existing federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders enacted before the effective date of this section for the purpose of determining constitutionality and shall recommend whether to nullify in its entirety a specific federal statute, regulation, or executive order," the bill said.
(c) If passed, the State Legislature ostensibly would decide if the edict becomes the law in North Dakota.
(d)
"If the legislative assembly approves the concurrent resolution by a simple majority to nullify a federal statute, regulation, or executive order based on constitutionality, the state and the citizens of the state may not recognize or be obligated to abide by the federal law or executive order," the bill reads.
These bills should serve as a model for all 31 GOP-controlled legislatures, especially in the 23 states where there are also Republican governors. I hear so many conservatives acting despondent and either resigned to tyranny or calling for secession or even a civil war. But the solution implied in these bills would keep the union loosely intact while peacefully maintaining a constitutional sanctuary for those who still value constitutional freedoms. This is the best way to peacefully and gradually separate blue and red America into their respective cultural, economic, and governing choices so we can live together more agreeably as a federal union.
