The Road to Splitsville UTAH TO FEDS: DROP DEAD

The Newsletter for Subscribers to THE SPLIT

If you ask us, a journey of a thousand miles down the road to Splitsville begins with a single step. And look, here’s one now!

CNN  — 

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.

Yes, the good (or maybe the bad) people of Utah have, via their legislature, passed a bill that says, in layman’s terms, “The Federal government isn’t the boss of us! So if they pass a law we don’t like, we hereby give ourselves permission to think about defying it.”

It sounds disingenuous and unconstitutional because it is disingenuous and (probably) unconstitutional. As CNN notes, the bill “may stand in conflict with the US Constitution’s ‘Supremacy Clause,’ which states federal laws take precedence over state ones.” (Note to selves: Use Supremacy Claus as the name of Santa and Mrs. Claus’s much-ignored son.)

As for disingenuous, well, Utah State Senator Scott Sandall, who sponsored the bill, says it’s “a process bill” rather than “a policy bill,” which means it simply calls for a formalized process by which the state can challenge any Federal laws with which it doesn’t agree. They’re not saying, “We intend to ignore Federal pollution standards meant to protect the air and water in neighboring states from the effluents spewed by a polluting state.” They’re saying, “If we happen to think that Federal pollution standards are icky or inconvenient for us to enforce, we’ll put it to a vote, and then decide whether to ignore them or not.”

It's not as though this sort of thing hasn’t happened before. It has—and by “before,” we mean, “since the founding of the country.” After all, everyone knows that the Civil War was fought over states’ rights (read: slavery). And states have taken issue with Federal regulations from both directions on the political spectrum. California, for example, has pollution laws stricter than those passed by Congress. Marijuana is (still) illegal in Federal law but is legal in 24 states and Washington, D.C.

Robert Keiter, a law professor quoted in the article, says the measure is just “symbolic” for now. If the Utah lege does vote to overrule a Federal statute, that will probably be struck down in court—which, he notes, would result from a costly process for which the state will have to pay. And this gesture toward proud, noble state sovereignty would be no bargain for the state’s workers, who would find themselves facing the conflict of either obeying the state’s law (and running afoul of the Feds), or following the Federal law, and risking losing their state job.

So maybe this is just a bit of right-wing bluster. After all, now that they’ve given up actually helping people, and exist only to own the libs, all the Republicans can offer (apart from abortion restrictions, sympathy for dictators, and tax breaks for the rich) is bluster.

Still, it’s the thought that counts, isn’t it? Senator Sandall (speaking of disingenuous) thinks that every state should pass such a bill. As he said to CNN:

I think any state should be looking at adopting this. Don’t you want a real organized way in your state to vet these things and look and say where the federal government is overreaching? No matter which party or which ideology you espouse, this could be helpful in any state, in my opinion.

Isn’t that nice? In any case, Utah has decided that, as a matter of principle, its citizens shouldn’t be obligated to obey laws that apply to the rest of the U.S. If one regards the separation of the conservative states from the liberal ones as something that might resemble a divorce, as in The Split, then Utah has recently said the equivalent of, “We should see other people.”

Where do you think that leads?