Missouri House Bill HB174

Missouri 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/4/23
• Refer: 5/12/23

Caption

Allows the House of Representatives to review presidential orders and declare them unconstitutional

Impact

The enactment of HB 174 would significantly impact the relationship between federal and state authorities regarding the enforcement of executive orders. It introduces a mechanism for state scrutiny of federal actions, particularly in situations where local governance might feel overreached. By giving state legislators a formal role in the review process of executive actions, the bill seeks to reinforce state sovereignty, allowing Missouri to potentially exempt itself from federal mandates that it finds objectionable.

Summary

House Bill 174 permits the House of Representatives of Missouri to review executive orders issued by the President of the United States, specifically those not affirmed by Congress. This bill empowers the House to recommend further examination by the Attorney General to determine the constitutionality of such orders. If deemed unconstitutional, the bill explicitly prohibits state agencies and officials from enforcing any executive order that restricts constitutional rights or is found unconstitutional in relation to various domains such as business regulation during public health emergencies, natural resources, agriculture, land use, financial sector regulations, and the right to bear arms.

Sentiment

Sentiment around HB 174 appears to be mixed, with strong support among those who value state autonomy and wish to restrict the power of federal executive actions. Proponents argue that this bill can serve as a check on federal overreach, particularly in matters that directly affect Missouri residents. Conversely, critics of the bill may view it as potentially destabilizing, arguing that such measures could politicize what should be a public health and safety response and create a fractured implementation of federal standards at the state level.

Contention

Notable points of contention include concerns over whether the bill's provisions could unduly limit the effectiveness of federal public health responses, particularly during emergencies such as a pandemic. Opponents also worry that this bill could set a precedent for contentious legal battles between state and federal jurisdictions, complicating the legal landscape surrounding executive powers. The specificity of areas impacted by this review, especially concerning regulatory domains, has raised questions about balancing state and federal responsibilities.