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 »
"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.
"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.
"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."