HB 83 - FEDERAL REGULATIONS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS  1:42:09 PM CHAIR KELLER announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 83, "An Act relating to certain federal statutes, regulations, presidential executive orders, and secretarial orders; relating to the duties of the attorney general; and providing for an effective date." 1:42:25 PM JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Keller, indicated that under HB 83, if the attorney general feels after review that a federal statute, federal regulation, presidential executive order, or secretarial order is unconstitutional or was not properly adopted in accordance with federal statutory authority, the attorney general shall notify the chairs of the House and Senate Standing Judiciary Committees, which may then consider whether legislative action is warranted. In response to a question, he explained that the attorney general's notification would come in the form of a report [as outlined in Section 4's proposed new AS 44.23.020(h)(1)-(4)]. CHAIR KELLER, as the sponsor of HB 83 and in response to comments, clarified that the bill itself doesn't specify what legislative action the House and Senate Standing Judiciary Committees might then take. In response to questions and further comments, he concurred that the bill basically addresses notification, and explained that under Section 4 of the bill, it would be mandatory for the attorney general - under the existing process - to continue reviewing federal statutes, federal regulations, presidential executive orders, and secretarial orders. It is not his intention, he assured the committee, to impose a burden on the Department of Law (DOL) other than to require it to furnish the aforementioned report. He surmised that that's why the DOL has submitted a zero fiscal note for HB 83. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed interest in having the DOL address its fiscal note specifically in light of that reporting requirement. 1:51:43 PM MICHAEL C. COONS offered his belief that there is a general misconception that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law does indeed constitute the law of the land. However, for any statute to be valid, it must comport with the U.S. Constitution - the supreme law of the land. He paraphrased language from select U.S. Supreme Court rulings in support of that concept: Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803) MR. COONS, in conclusion, indicated disfavor with certain actions taken at both the state and federal level and distrust of those taking the federal actions; referencing the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, offered his belief that the bill could potentially stop such actions in the future and help Alaska recover from those already taken; and urged full support and passage of HB 83. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned whether any given measure could be ruled unconstitutional by other than a supreme court. CHAIR KELLER noted that some folks believe that others can and should do so. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN indicated that he would be comfortable receiving a report from the attorney general as outlined under Section 4 of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated favor with Sections 3 and 4 of the bill, but disfavor with Section 2 of the bill, characterizing the language therein that reads, "may not be considered to preempt a state law" as somewhat vague. CHAIR KELLER ascertained that no one else wished to testify and closed public testimony on HB 83. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he supports HB 83. The committee took a brief at-ease. CHAIR KELLER, in response to comments, relayed that HB 83 would be held over.