Texas House Bill HCR29

Texas 2017 - 85th Regular

Caption

Declaring that presidential executive orders cannot interfere with states' rights.

Impact

The resolution is aimed at clarifying Texas's position on the relationship between state and federal authorities, specifically in the context of executive order enforcement. It articulates a strong stance that such orders should not be seen as directives that state agencies are obligated to follow. By stating that these orders do not carry the weight of law within the state, HCR29 aims to reinforce the autonomy of Texas and its citizens against federal overreach. If adopted, the resolution would serve as a formal declaration that could influence state policies, particularly those impacted by federal mandates.

Summary

HCR29, introduced by Representative Bell, is a concurrent resolution asserting that presidential executive orders lack constitutional authority over state law and cannot infringe upon the rights of states. The resolution references the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which delineates the powers reserved to the states and emphasizes that the federal government should only act within its constitutional bounds. The resolution posits that executive orders, as unilateral actions taken by the president, circumvent the legislative process and undermine the foundational principles of democracy by bypassing congressional approval.

Contention

Debate surrounding HCR29 may center on the interpretation of federal versus state powers. Proponents of the resolution would argue that it is essential for states to maintain their rights in the face of increasing federal actions that challenge their sovereignty. Critics might raise concerns about the implications of disregarding presidential orders, suggesting it could lead to a fractious federal-state dynamic that could complicate governance and public policy. As the resolution seeks to assert Texas's rights, it adds to the ongoing discussions regarding local control versus federal authority, highlighting tensions that may arise from differing interpretations of constitutional powers.