Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
03/17/2015 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR15|| SCR4 | |
| SB42 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 42 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SCR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SJR 15-CALL FOR US COUNTERMAND CONVENTION
SCR 4-US COUNTERMAND CONVENTION DELEGATES
9:01:34 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE [announced that the first order of business would
be a hearing on both SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15, Making
application to the United States Congress to call a convention
of the states to propose a countermand amendment to the
Constitution of the United States as provided under art. V,
Constitution of the United States; and urging the legislatures
of the other 49 states to make the same application; and SENATE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Relating to the duties of delegates
selected by the legislature to attend a convention of the states
called under art. V, Constitution of the United States, to
consider a countermand amendment to the Constitution of the
United States; establishing as a joint committee of the
legislature the Delegate Credential Committee and relating to
the duties of the committee; providing for an oath for delegates
and alternates to a countermand amendment convention; providing
for a chair and assistant chair of the state's countermand
amendment delegation; providing for the duties of the chair and
assistant chair; providing instructions for the selection of a
convention president; and providing specific language for the
countermand amendment on which the state's convention delegates
are authorized by the legislature to vote to approve].
At ease from 9:02 a.m. to 9:04 a.m.
9:04:31 AM
STUART KRUEGER, Staff, Representative Shelly Hughes, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Hughes, sponsor
of HJR 14 and HCR 4, House companion legislation, relayed that
SJR 15 and SCR 4 would together address an application by the
State of Alaska to pursue a constitutional convention under
powers granted by Article V of the Constitution of the United
States. Under the proposed resolutions, however, the proposed
constitutional convention is supposed to be limited to just one
subject, that being what he referred to as a "countermand
amendment" as outlined in SCR 4. He offered his understanding
that such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would provide
the states with "veto power" over federal law.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee meeting.
MR. KRUEGER, referring to SCR 4, paraphrased the language on
page 11, line 14, through page 12, line 16, which read:
"Section 1. The Article restores State sovereignty in
our Constitutional Republic by providing State
Legislatures Countermand authority.
"Section 2. State Legislatures in the several States
shall have the authority to Countermand and rescind
any Congressional Statute, Judicial decision,
Executive Order, Treaty, government agency's
regulatory ruling, or any other government or non-
government mandate (including excessive spending and
credit) imposed on them when in the opinion of 60
percent of State Legislatures the law or ruling
adversely affects their States' interest. When the
Countermand threshold has been reached, the law or
ruling shall be immediately and automatically
nullified and repealed. This Countermand authority
shall also apply to existing laws and rulings.
"Section 3. From the time the initial Countermand is
issued by a State Legislature, the other Legislatures
shall have 18 months to complete the Countermand
process. If the Countermand process is not completed
in 18 months, then the law or ruling that is being
challenged shall remain enforceable.
"Section 4. Each State Legislature shall complete
their Countermand affidavit and deliver a certified
copy to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme
Court, the Leader of the United States Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President
of the United States, and when applicable the
Government Agency or Body that is being challenged.
"Section 5. Congress shall have the power to enforce
this Article by appropriate legislation.
"Section 6. Individual States shall have authority to
prosecute violators of this Article under State laws
in the absence of Federal prosecution after 90 days
from the date of the alleged violation. Multiple
prosecutions, by multiple States, for the same alleged
crime are prohibited.
"Section 7. The Article shall be immediately part of
the United States Constitution upon ratification by
three quarters of the State Legislatures in the
several States.
"Section 8. The provisions of this Article are
enforceable within the United States, which shall
include the Several States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands and the territories and
possessions of the United States.";
MR. KRUEGER indicated that the concepts embodied in the proposed
resolutions were brought forth by Mike Coons and an organization
called Citizen Initiatives, and offered his belief that the
resolutions' proposed countermand amendment to the Constitution
of the United States could be viewed as a nonpartisan issue. In
response to a question, he indicated that [if the resolutions
are passed, and a constitutional convention addressing the
proposed countermand amendment is convened, and ratification of
the proposed change to the Constitution of the United States
occurs, then] any state in disagreement with a federal law could
seek repeal/nullification of that law through a specific
process.
9:13:06 AM
MIKE COONS, National and State Director, Citizen Initiatives,
opined that a countermand amendment to the Constitution of the
United States is sorely needed, indicated that an application to
Congress to call a constitutional convention must still be made,
and mentioned that the resolutions' proposed constitutional
convention is defined in one of the resolutions. He, too, noted
that the resolutions' proposed constitutional convention is
supposed to be limited to just the subject of a countermand
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Referring
to what he termed a "credentials committee," he offered his
understanding that it would be appointed by the State of Alaska,
and would control the delegates, including picking them,
overseeing them, and responding to their questions.
MR. COONS, in response to a request, offered a hypothetical
example involving state and federal lands, and predicted that
with ratification of a countermand amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, resolutions passed by the states would
then have the force of law. In response to questions involving
other hypothetical examples, he, too, offered his understanding
that [if the resolutions are passed, and a constitutional
convention addressing the proposed countermand amendment is
convened, and ratification of the proposed change to the
Constitution of the United States occurs, then] states in
disagreement with a federal law could seek repeal/nullification
of that law.
SENATOR COGHILL, mentioning "federal overreach," characterized
the resolutions' proposed countermand amendment to the
Constitution of the United States as a tool to be used by states
that disapprove of federal law, and expressed support.
SENATOR HUGGINS predicted that should the resolutions' proposed
countermand amendment to the Constitution of the United States
be ratified, it would not be used in his lifetime.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI cautioned against allowing a majority of
the states to overturn U.S. Supreme Court decisions, venturing
that had the resolutions' proposed countermand amendment to the
Constitution of the United States been ratified in the past, a
majority of the states could have gotten together to overturn
the significant civil-rights decisions that have been made -
decisions such as ending segregation, for example.
[SCR 4 and SJR 15 were held in committee.]