Arizona State Lawmakers Want to Nullify All EPA Regulations

Arizona conservatives say the federal government has no authority to impose environmental regulations, but similar arguments elsewhere have foundered.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer points during an intense conversation with President Barack Obama after he arrived at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012, in Mesa, Ariz. Asked moments later what the conversation was about, Brewer, a Republican, said: "He was a little disturbed about my book." Brewer recently published a book, "Scorpions for Breakfast," something of a memoir of her years growing up and defends her signing of Arizona's controversial law cracking down on illegal immigrants, which Obama opposes. Obama was objecting to Brewer's description of a meeting he and Brewer had at the White House, where she described Obama as lecturing her. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)
National Journal
Jack Fitzpatrick
Add to Briefcase
Jack Fitzpatrick
Jan. 28, 2014, 5:40 a.m.

It’s no sur­prise when con­ser­vat­ive state law­makers in­voke the 10th Amend­ment to re­buke the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, and it’s all too com­mon that Ari­zona tangles with the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion.

So it may have only been a mat­ter of time be­fore Ari­zona law­makers did both at the same time.

On Monday, 37 Ari­zona state law­makers in­tro­duced a bill aim­ing to nul­li­fy all En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency reg­u­la­tions in the state, ar­guing that the 10th Amend­ment pre­cludes any fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions over the en­vir­on­ment.

Ari­zona con­ser­vat­ives have already cri­ti­cized EPA’s up­com­ing pro­pos­al to lim­it car­bon emis­sions in power plants, call­ing it part of Pres­id­ent Obama’s “War on Coal.” The state has also clashed with the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment in court over its im­mig­ra­tion law and the Vot­ing Rights Act. And Re­pub­lic­an state Sen. Judy Burges, the lead spon­sor of this new EPA bill, has pushed oth­er state-sov­er­eignty le­gis­la­tion, in­clud­ing a bill that would ban cit­ies in Ari­zona from en­act­ing sus­tain­ab­il­ity pro­grams re­com­men­ded by the U.N.

Burges and sev­er­al co­spon­sors of the bill did not re­spond to re­quests for com­ment.

The law­makers join a long list of con­ser­vat­ives na­tion­wide who have cited the 10th Amend­ment when fight­ing fed­er­al agen­cies.

The amend­ment, which grants state gov­ern­ments all powers not ex­pressly giv­en to the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, has fre­quently been cham­pioned by con­ser­vat­ives on is­sues in­clud­ing health care re­form and gun con­trol. The move­ment has even been col­lect­ively re­ferred to as the “Ten­ther Move­ment.”

At the World Eco­nom­ic For­um on Jan. 23, Texas Gov. Rick Perry spoke in fa­vor of states form­ing policies on same-sex mar­riage, marijuana leg­al­iz­a­tion, and abor­tion, cit­ing the 10th Amend­ment, ac­cord­ing to U.S. News and World Re­port. And in 2013, Sen. Ro­ger Wick­er, R-Miss., in­tro­duced a bill re­quir­ing fed­er­al agen­cies to prove that a rule does not con­flict with the 10th Amend­ment if a state of­fi­cial chal­lenges the rule.

But the prob­lem with Ari­zona’s 10th Amend­ment ar­gu­ment — and those in oth­er states — is that the amend­ment has been largely mean­ing­less for dec­ades. Al­though it gives states any powers not giv­en to the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, two sec­tions of the Con­sti­tu­tion give the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment nearly any power it wants. The in­ter­state com­merce clause gives the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment the right to reg­u­late com­merce, and the ne­ces­sary and prop­er clause gives it the power pass any laws ne­ces­sary to carry out its oth­er powers.

With those clauses of­ten lib­er­ally ap­plied, the Su­preme Court ruled in sev­er­al cases in the early to mid-20th cen­tury that the 10th Amend­ment was a prom­ise that the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment would re­spect the states, but that it had es­sen­tially no leg­al power.

In 1941, Chief Justice Har­lan Stone wrote that the amend­ment was all but point­less: “The amend­ment states but a tru­ism that all is re­tained which has not been sur­rendered.”

What We're Following See More »
BUT IS HE A YES VOTE?
Cornyn Attempting to Get McCain Back for Health Vote
7 minutes ago
THE LATEST
“TIME HAD RUN OUT” FOR ILL BABY
Charlie Gard’s Parents End Legal Fight
31 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"A lawyer representing Chris Gard and Connie Yates told the High Court 'time had run out' for the baby. Mr. Gard said it meant his 'sweet, gorgeous, innocent little boy' will not reach his first birthday on 4 August. 'To let our beautiful little Charlie go' is 'the hardest thing we'll ever have to do,' his mother said. Charlie's parents said they made the decision because a US doctor had told them it was now too late to give Charlie nucleoside therapy.

Source:
AGENCY SOUGHT TO DELAY IMPLEMENTATION
11 States Sue EPA Over Chemical Rule
33 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

"Eleven states have sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its June decision to delay implementation of a chemical safety rule" until 2019. "The state attorneys general, led by New York’s Eric Schneiderman (D), argue the rule is important for 'protecting our workers, first-responders and communities from chemical accidents' and should be allowed to take affect as planned by the Obama administration’s EPA.

Source:
ULTIMATUM ON ACA
Trump: You’re With Us Or Against Us
51 minutes ago
THE LATEST
$1.6 BILLION SET ASIDE FOR WALL
House Freedom Caucus Chair: Shutdown Over Wall Funding Unlikely
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) on Monday said that funding for President Trump's controversial border wall is unlikely to cause a government shutdown. 'The odds of a government shutdown are very minimal when it comes to that,' the conservative lawmaker said at an event in Washington, D.C. 'I do think the funding of the border wall will happen,' he added. Appropriators have set aside $1.6 billion to fund new wall and fencing sections on parts of the U.S.-Mexico border covering a few dozen miles."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login