Texas Senate Bill SCR39

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Introduced: 3/4/09
• Refer: 3/13/09

Caption

Affirming that the State of Texas claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates, and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.

Impact

Should SCR39 be adopted, it will serve as a formal assertion of Texas's stance against federal mandates that are viewed as intrusive or overstepping the bounds of federal authority. The resolution demands that the federal government cease any actions that require compliance from the states under threat of penalties or loss of funding. As such, it seeks to roll back compulsory federal legislation that the resolution identifies as unconstitutional. This action is indicative of a broader movement among certain states to reclaim powers and responsibilities that they believe have been unjustly transferred to the federal government over time.

Summary

SCR39 is a Senate Concurrent Resolution that affirms the State of Texas's claim of sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This resolution holds that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states. The sponsors of SCR39 assert that numerous federal actions and proposals encroach upon the rights and responsibilities of state governments, thereby undermining the federalist system established by the nation's Founders. By invoking historical perspectives from figures like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, the resolution emphasizes that the states are not subservient to the federal government but rather coordinate partners within the constitutional system.

Contention

Although SCR39 primarily aims to affirm state sovereignty, it is likely to generate contention regarding its practical implications. Advocates of the resolution argue that it is a necessary measure to protect state rights and uphold the Constitution. However, critics may contend that such actions contribute to a breakdown of a unified national policy on critical issues, such as healthcare, education, and environmental regulations. There is a fear that asserting state sovereignty could lead to inconsistent application of laws and rights across different states, ultimately affecting citizens’ rights and services on a national level.