Pennsylvania Senate Bill SR52

Pennsylvania 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/14/23
• Refer: 3/14/23

Caption

A Concurrent Resolution establishing a delegation to represent the Commonwealth at the Amendment Convention pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States entitled the Article V Amendment Convention and limited to proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to grant State Legislatures authority to countermand and rescind any mandate issued by any Branch of the Federal Government or their agencies that encroach on states' rights and the personal liberties of their citizens.

Impact

The proposed amendment, if adopted, would alter the dynamics of how state and federal interactions are navigated, providing state legislatures a greater ability to challenge federal overreach. This may lead to substantial changes in various areas including health care regulation, education policy, and environmental laws, as states could potentially invalidate federal mandates that they deem excessive or unjust. Such a shift could reinforce state autonomy, enabling local governance to tailor regulations according to their constituents' needs. Conversely, it could also create a landscape where states could enact policies that might conflict with federal laws, leading to legal challenges and further bureaucratic complexities.

Summary

SR52 is a concurrent resolution that seeks to establish a delegation to represent the Commonwealth at an Amendment Convention as per Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The primary aim of the resolution is to propose an amendment that would empower state legislatures to countermand and rescind any federal mandates issued by any branch of the federal government or their agencies. This would be significant in encroaching on the rights of states and the personal liberties of citizens. The resolution reflects a broader discourse on the balance of power between federal and state authorities in the governance of laws and regulations affecting the citizenry.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SR52 appears to be mixed. Supporters argue that the resolution is a necessary safeguard for states' rights and personal liberties that protect citizens from federal overreach. They see it as a way to ensure that decisions affecting citizens are made closer to home, within their respective states. On the other hand, opponents express concerns that this resolution could undermine the uniformity of federal laws designed to protect citizens at a national level, potentially leading to a patchwork of state laws that could disadvantage citizens in states with less protective regulations. This divergence of opinion reflects a significant tension between those advocating for state authority and efficacy and those advocating for cohesive governance that spans the nation.

Contention

Notable points of contention arise regarding the implications of allowing state legislatures to countermand federal regulations. Critics worry that it could lead to a scenario where states prioritize local interests over broader, more protective federal laws. There is also concern about the potential for increased legislative gridlock and confusion resulting from varying states' interpretations and applications of laws that the federal government aims to standardize. As discussions continue around SR52, these debates underscore fundamental questions about the proper balance between federal mandates and state sovereignty in a democratic framework.