Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, February 11, 2010

Senate approves resolution critical of federal government intrusion

February 11, 2010, 4:20 p.m. Updated February 11, 2010, 5:45 p.m.

Advertisement

— The Kansas Senate on Thursday approved a measure that supporters said is meant to the tell the federal government to stop intruding on states’ rights. But opponents of the proposal say it could be seen as putting the Kansas Legislature on record as opposed to civil rights.

During questioning on Senate Concurrent Resolution 1615, state Sen. Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, asked if the resolution could be interpreted as calling for repeal of federal civil rights and voting rights laws. Sen. Tim Owens, R-Overland Park, and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said it could.

“I find that very troubling,” Hensley said.

Later, state Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook, who introduced the resolution, said Hensley was wrong because civil rights and voting rights have been established by the courts as constitutional.

But state Sen. Marci Fancisco, D-Lawrence, disagreed with Pilcher-Cook about the resolution, noting that it states “Be it further resolved: That all compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”

The resolution was approved on a 33-7 vote. It is non-binding and next goes to the House for consideration. Both Hensley and Francisco were among those who voted against the measure.

A hearing and rally on the resolution last month in Topeka drew approximately 200 supporters, many of whom said the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives states power in certain areas and that federal mandates had interfered in those areas.

Sen. David Haley, D-Kansas City, opposed the measure, saying while he was unhappy with some actions of the federal government, he thought it was inappropriate to pass a resolution. “We need to stop this train right here on this track,” he said.

But Pilcher-Cook said the resolution was necessary and will educate the public about the 10th Amendment. “Ultimately, this resolution will have to be backed up by future actions of the Kansas Legislature,” she said. If approved by the House, the resolution will be sent to President Barack Obama and other federal leaders.

Pilcher-Cook is also pushing a proposal that says Kansas has the right to block pending federal health reform requirements to have health insurance coverage. That measure, if approved by two thirds of the House and Senate, would be put on the November ballot for Kansas voters to decide.

Comments

Finn12 4 years, 10 months ago

Just a thought, Senator David Haley -- though you think it "inappropriate" to pass a resolution, what would you have otherwise? Citizens up in arms? I challenge you, Mr. Haley, to offer any better alternative. As I am a common serf, I'll tell you the government's train has run over all of us commoners twice over. Your lordship seems quite unaware of how ordinary people have suffered.

RogueThrill 4 years, 10 months ago

Then reject all federal stimulus money, highway subsidies, educational monies, health care money, etc you fricken pansies.

Sure, you'll lose your elections when everyone realizes you screwed us over and ruined the state, but at least you won't be spineless twits.

KarinNowla 4 years, 10 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Orwell 4 years, 10 months ago

I want a resolution against gravity. I never voted for it, and it affects me unfairly – i.e., more than it affects people who weigh less than I do.

What complete time-wasting, self-centered, rabble-rousing nonsense. If there's a case to be made for the unconstitutionality of a federal statute, the place to make that case is in the federal courts – not the Kansas Senate. Of course, if your "unconstitutionality" argument is based merely on a spoiled-brat disagreement with the law, I can see why the folly of a "legislative resolution" might seem preferable to an embarrassing loss in court.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 10 months ago

"But Pilcher-Cook said the resolution was necessary and will educate the public about the 10th Amendment."

The notion that this ignoramus could "educate" anyone about anything is laughable.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 10 months ago

Yet government demands we have vehicle insurance and homeowners insurance on loans... hmmmmmmm

Demanding people must have health insurance is a bit strong I'll grant. But repubs and the Chamber of Commerce have been huge obstacles to true insurance reform. While these bodies scream about tax dollars IMPROVED Medicare for All Insurance would reduce substantially the number tax dollars necessary to medically insure millions of city,state and federal government employees.

IMPROVED Medicare for All Insurance would reduce public school budgets big time.

Politicans love special interest campaign dollars and medical insurance companies love:

"The U.S. health care system is typically characterized as a largely private-sector system, so it may come as a surprise that more than 60% of the $2 trillion annual U.S. health care bill is paid through taxes($1.2 trillion), according to a 2002 analysis published in Health Affairs by Harvard Medical School associate professors Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein. "

Commenting has been disabled for this item.