Utah’s new ‘Sovereignty Act’ sets up a process to overrule the federal government. But is it constitutional?

[essentialsaltes]

Headline is a question, therefore the answer is no.


A bill recently signed into law in Utah sets up a process for the state to overrule or otherwise ignore federal rules and decisions, the latest move in a Republican-led push against what they see as federal overreach.

The Utah bill, introduced as the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” was signed into law by Gov. Spencer Cox on January 31.

Yet the push may stand in conflict with the US Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause,” which states federal laws take precedence over state ones. Robert Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah’s SJ Quinney College of Law, said he was skeptical the Sovereignty Act was constitutional.

 

[Fantine]

Of course it isn't. These rogue governors need to do their homework.

My state passed law saying they would not abide by any federal gun laws passed after 2021.

What gives them that right?

 

[HTacianas]

Headline is a question, therefore the answer is no.


A bill recently signed into law in Utah sets up a process for the state to overrule or otherwise ignore federal rules and decisions, the latest move in a Republican-led push against what they see as federal overreach.

The Utah bill, introduced as the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” was signed into law by Gov. Spencer Cox on January 31.

Yet the push may stand in conflict with the US Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause,” which states federal laws take precedence over state ones. Robert Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah’s SJ Quinney College of Law, said he was skeptical the Sovereignty Act was constitutional.

Given the decisions made relating to the reconstruction Amendments, likely not. But originally it wasn't that way. The Supremacy Clause makes Federal law the "law of the land" in matters the Federal government has jurisdiction over. If the Federal government entered into a treaty with a foreign country, no State could refuse to recognize it. But the Supremacy Clause has since been used to run over the State governments through only the weakest of constitutional claims. Federal gun laws are an example. The interstate commerce clause has been used to regulate guns shipped in interstate commerce, something that was never meant to be. The downside to all of it for gun control enthusiasts is that now the Second Amendment overrules State law. Originally a State could ban firearm ownership altogether because the Bill of Rights never applied to the States.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Federal gun laws are an example. The interstate commerce clause has been used to regulate guns shipped in interstate commerce, something that was never meant to be.

What part of Congress having the power to regulate interstate commerce doesn't cover items shipped from state to state, including guns?

 

[HTacianas]

What part of Congress having the power to regulate interstate commerce doesn't cover items shipped from state to state, including guns?

Congress originally had jurisdiction over the commerce, not the item in commerce. After the commerce ends, Congress has no jurisdiction over it. It's as much to say as Congress having jurisdiction over a ball point pen in someone's pocket. It is no longer commerce it is property. There was a really bad Supreme Court ruling once that said there must be a nexus to commerce for Congress to have jurisdiction. It resulted in some guy being sent to prison on Federal charges of Hobb's Act robbery for the simple armed robbery of a fried chicken restaurant. The Supreme Court later had to back off of the nexus test when it ruled on the Federal Gun-free School Zone law. It ended up with a slightly schizophrenic interpretation of what constitutes a nexus.

 

[A2SG]

Headline is a question, therefore the answer is no.


A bill recently signed into law in Utah sets up a process for the state to overrule or otherwise ignore federal rules and decisions, the latest move in a Republican-led push against what they see as federal overreach.

The Utah bill, introduced as the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” was signed into law by Gov. Spencer Cox on January 31.

Yet the push may stand in conflict with the US Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause,” which states federal laws take precedence over state ones. Robert Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah’s SJ Quinney College of Law, said he was skeptical the Sovereignty Act was constitutional.

I wonder...

If the SCOTUS rules that Trump cannot be disqualified from a state ballot due to engaging in insurrection...could this law allow the state to disqualify him anyway, regardless of the ruling?

-- A2SG, don'tcha just love it when MAGA attempts to game the system bite them in the....back.....

 

[eleos1954]

Headline is a question, therefore the answer is no.


A bill recently signed into law in Utah sets up a process for the state to overrule or otherwise ignore federal rules and decisions, the latest move in a Republican-led push against what they see as federal overreach.

The Utah bill, introduced as the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” was signed into law by Gov. Spencer Cox on January 31.

Yet the push may stand in conflict with the US Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause,” which states federal laws take precedence over state ones. Robert Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah’s SJ Quinney College of Law, said he was skeptical the Sovereignty Act was constitutional.

A state can overide some federal laws ... but .... they could most certainly be challenged by the feds .... if so then the case(s) would go before the Supreme court. So, basically Utah put themselves in the position where they can pass laws for the state and litigate laws they might pass in their state at the supreme court level.

It will depend on IF the feds want to challenge them on things they have or might pass that differ from federal law.

 

[BCP1928]

A state can overide some federal laws ... but .... they could most certainly be challenged by the feds .... if so then the case(s) would go before the Supreme court. So, basically Utah put themselves in the position where they can pass laws for the state and litigate laws they might pass in their state at the supreme court level.

It will depend on IF the feds want to challenge them on things they have or might pass that differ from federal law.

That should be fun, since it is a conservative issue it will mostly all be hot prurient stuff about drag queens and pedophiles and fantasies about boys sneaking into girls locker rooms to watch them undress.

 

[eleos1954]

That should be fun, since it is a conservative issue it will mostly all be hot prurient stuff about drag queens and pedophiles and fantasies about boys sneaking into girls locker rooms to watch them undress.

I live in Utah .... it is mostly a conservative leaning state ... I'm OK with that. Moved here about 3 years ago and quite honestly was one of the draws to move here .... state I grew up in changed so I moved .... much happier here for this and many other reasons.

 

[Arcangl86]

My read of the law actually is that it would hold up, though of course IANAL or legal scholar. But it seems to rely pretty heavily on the anti-commandeering doctrine which essentially means that the states cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. That's the same doctrine sanctuary cities rely on btw. But this specifically names the executive and legislative branches but not the judicial, which means they will still enforce judgements by federal courts. Personally I think the anti-commandeering doctrine is bad law, but it ain't going anywhere.

 

[BCP1928]

My read of the law actually is that it would hold up, though of course IANAL or legal scholar. But it seems to rely pretty heavily on the anti-commandeering doctrine which essentially means that the states cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. That's the same doctrine sanctuary cities rely on btw. But this specifically names the executive and legislative branches but not the judicial, which means they will still enforce judgements by federal courts. Personally I think the anti-commandeering doctrine is bad law, but it ain't going anywhere.

Well, it depends on who you ask. When it allows police to refuse to enforce federal gun laws then it's good. When it allows police to refuse to enforce federal immigration law, then it is bad.

 

[B Griffin]

Well, it depends on who you ask. When it allows police to refuse to enforce federal gun laws then it's good. When it allows police to refuse to enforce federal immigration law, then it is bad.

True. Ideology affects one's perception. Possession and use of marijuana is a federal crime. But a few liberal states have passed laws allowing it. So, it sounds pious for someone to be bellyaching over some abuses but not all abuses.

 

[Brihaha]

True. Ideology affects one's perception. Possession and use of marijuana is a federal crime. But a few liberal states have passed laws allowing it. So, it sounds pious for someone to be bellyaching over some abuses but not all abuses.

Regular states like Virginia passed laws to legalize cannabis too. We don't have to waste time waiting on an incompetent federal government to remove it from the schedule I list. It seems cannabis may be headed for the schedule III list in the near future. Research has shown that is where it belongs.

FDA Recommends DEA Move Cannabis to Schedule III

Newly released documents show that the FDA has determined that cannabis has legitimate medical use and that it should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III on the controlled substances list.

www.medscape.com

 

[Arcangl86]

Well, it depends on who you ask. When it allows police to refuse to enforce federal gun laws then it's good. When it allows police to refuse to enforce federal immigration law, then it is bad.

Well I don't really mean it in the sense of approval or disapproval. I think it was wrongly decided, even if it has some side effects I do approve of.

 

[TPop]

I wonder...

If the SCOTUS rules that Trump cannot be disqualified from a state ballot due to engaging in insurrection...could this law allow the state to disqualify him anyway, regardless of the ruling?

-- A2SG, don'tcha just love it when MAGA attempts to game the system bite them in the....back.....

Like the Commies actions always bite them? Unethical prosecutors. Biden with documents as senator or VP in his garage, in boxes. Hillary with there potty server.

I think what you really mean, is, Commies have no ethics or principles. Not that they live by.

Peace and Blessings

 

[RileyG]

I live in Utah .... it is mostly a conservative leaning state ... I'm OK with that. Moved here about 3 years ago and quite honestly was one of the draws to move here .... state I grew up in changed so I moved .... much happier here for this and many other reasons.

I wonder how much the LDS Church affects the politics of Utah....if the LDS Church still influences them or if their membership in the state is down...

 

[A2SG]

Like the Commies actions always bite them?

I must admit, I don't know much about the American Communist Party's issues. Have they had problems?

Unethical prosecutors. Biden with documents as senator or VP in his garage, in boxes. Hillary with there potty server.

Um.... what about them?

I think what you really mean, is, Commies have no ethics or principles. Not that they live by.

No, that isn't what I meant. I didn't even say a word about the American Communist Party.

-- A2SG, generally pretty good at saying what I mean, so why not just rely on that instead of making your own stuff up about random, uninvolved political parties, mmmkay?

 

[SimplyMe]

I wonder how much the LDS Church affects the politics of Utah....if the LDS Church still influences them or if their membership in the state is down...

I believe the state population is only about 50% Mormon, however (as of 2021) roughly 86% of the state legislators (89 of 103 lawmakers) were Mormon, as well as the governor. From what I know of it, this leads to things like the odd liquor laws in Utah; OTOH, there are also claims that it moderates the state government a bit, so that you don't have some of the craziness that is found in Arizona and Idaho.

 

[eleos1954]

I wonder how much the LDS Church affects the politics of Utah....if the LDS Church still influences them or if their membership in the state is down...

LDS does create a mindset more on the conservative side .... is one of the reasons I moved here ... I'm not Morman, nor do I subscribe to their teachings ... but they are more conservative and easy to live around.

 

[TPop]

I must admit, I don't know much about the American Communist Party's issues. Have they had problems?


Um.... what about them?


No, that isn't what I meant. I didn't even say a word about the American Communist Party.

-- A2SG, generally pretty good at saying what I mean, so why not just rely on that instead of making your own stuff up about random, uninvolved political parties, mmmkay?

"-- A2SG, don'tcha just love it when MAGA attempts to game the system bite them in the....back....."

You know you're on a Christian site right? Do you think I, if not many others, do not know your agenda here? Who brings up MAGA, other than those in opposition, which would be... With pretty good assurance by your own words, I know who you stand with. In the US, there are pretty much only Democrates, Rinos, and Conservatives.

While they don't dorn the actual name, not yet, the American Communist Party is Godless, Progressive, and Liberal where everything ungodly is loved and worshiped while truth, God, morals, and ethics, are all fluid and relative if not totally ignored except for sound bites.

Peace and Blessings