The Constitutionally appropriate way of doing this is to call a Constitutional Convention. It's only been done once, but the product of that event was the Bill of Rights.

The process for doing so is spelled out in Article V. It's pretty clear to me how it should be done.

All this other talk is just pure BS and should be called as such, IMHO.

Emmer seems to ignore the fact that US Representatives, Senators, and the President all have taken an oath to support the Constitution. Therefore, any federal law that has passed by a majority of each house and signed by the President is presumptively constitutional -- otherwise they wouldn't have enacted it -- and remains such until a court rules otherwise. There is absolutely no basis under the Constitutionan to believe that a federal statute enacted by Congress and signed the President also needs the consent of a state governor and a couple of legislators before it can go into effect.

It is ironic that Emmer, who is complaining about federal legislation (some of which may raise fair grounds for disagreement as to its constitutionality) has proposed a blatently and unquestionably non-constitutional mechanism to get his way.

Does the public really understand how far-our and nutty this guy really is? I hope your posts help to get that word out.

Now Paul,

"megalomaniac"? What ever happened to "rational minds locked in debate"?

Any assertion that to question whether the federal government has exceeded the limited authority granted it in the constitution is an attempt to overthrow that very constitution seems irrational at best, and fear-mongering at worst.

Why not stick to the actual facts on the ground?

Well, wouldn't just seceding from the union solve all these pesky constitutional questions. As a bonus we wouldn't have to pay federal taxes and with state taxes reduced to zero we could be living in a business climate utopia.

Doesn't anyone here have a small tract of land in Idaho they can sell to Emmer and his followers so they can start their own little society?

So the other party (duly elected) controls the federal branches of gov't, so let's see if we can ignore them? Despite the fact the majority of Minnesotans elected these people? How would you feel if the Feds decided they should pre-empt everything T-Paw's done?

Sigh.

Whatever law school granted Tom Emmer his law degree seems clearly to have been remarkably ineffective in its instruction.

The latest proposal, as Paul Udstrand suggests above, is an argument for a parallel government. It's unconstitutional on its face, and, as Paul says, it's largely a response to law(s) that Mr. Emmer and his supporters don't happen to like.

Apparently, he believes these laws were created by some alien, extraterrestrial force, rather than by fellow citizens who – difficult as this might be for Emmer and his supporters to believe – don't agree with his viewpoint. Even more distressing to the radical fringe, the people who don’t agree with that viewpoint are in the majority, and the whole framework of American society is based on majority rule. We have civil rights laws to try to ensure that minorities are not trampled by what is called, correctly, I think, the "tyranny of the majority," but nonetheless, majority rule is the law of the land.

If laws can be ignored because you don’t like them, modern society, the work of millions of people over many centuries, collapses, and we’re back to deciding issues at knifepoint, or by who is bigger and stronger and more vicious.

“…The states shouldn’t be waiting for the courts to decide…”? That’s what courts are for, Mr. Emmer – to decide questions of legal interpretation and constitutionality. This most recent proposal, even more blatantly than the earlier proposal from which he appears to be backing away now, disqualifies Mr. Emmer from holding statewide office.

Mr. Emmer is either so completely ignorant of the U.S. Constitution that he should probably be disbarred, or – as seems more likely – he’s cynically advancing “straw man” arguments that will fire up his Ayn Rand-worshipping supporters, but ultimately leave them disappointed because the answer to his last question is twofold:

“If the federal government can pass laws effective over all 50 states, why do we even have state constitutions?”

1. The very same 10th Amendment that Mr. Emmer and his supporter keep pointing to.

2. More than two centuries of legal precedent – the importance of which even an incompetent lawyer should be aware.

Because there's a good deal of redundancy in the 50 state constitutions, there's a veneer of plausibility to Emmer's not-very-serious rhetorical question, but each state, when established, had its own unique social and economic conditions, and felt the need for its own constitution – following the example of the original 13, as some of them did in establishing their legal codes.

Somehow, whenever the name Emmer appears I see Emperor.

I have long wondered about Emmer's mental health and this crackpot idea proves my concerns are well-founded I'm afraid. Often when I watched Emmer ranting on the House floor, I wondered if he had some type of structural brain abnormality that caused his irrational behavior.

Of more concern to me are the Republicans who have lined up to support Emmer. They include Laura Brod, Carol Collapsing Bridge Molnau, Brian Sullivan, Rod Grams, etc. What cast of characters.

I say let Emmer try to pass this resolution. If it happens, I'll be the first one to petition Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis to enact the EXACT same legislation, so we can opt out of this crap. If the state can ignore the feds, then local government can just as easily ignore the state.

After reading through his litany of lawsuits, megalomania sounds about right.

The Star Trib today has a story about Emmer and his business dealings. Sounds like he likes to unilaterally decide what a fair cost for services is whether providing or receiving, and if you don't like it, you have to sue him. He's been involved in more lawsuits in the last 10 years than every neighbor and person I know in my personal life total. Sounds like his arrogance and self righteousness would be beyond adequate description.

I got a speeding ticket the other day on 35w. The dumb cop refused to grasp the simple idea that I had opted out of obedience to the speed limit on federal highways because I believe that I can safely travel at a much higher speed. I'd fight it in court but I've opted out of obedience to certain state laws as well that I feel infringe on my freedom of movement. To compel me to be at a certain place (court) at a certain time and date is clearly unconstitutional.

I agree with many of the comments that point out the unconstitutionality of what Emmer proposes. However, I think Emmer's comments offer helpful insight into his temperament. Reading his latest proposal reminds of some arguments I have with my 7 year old son. I tell him to do something, he objects, I reassert my authority to let him know he must do what I tell him to do and, after a few rounds, in frustration, he threatens to run away from home. It's a nonsense threat, but one that symbolizes the way children try to assert some semblance of power over their lives.

Emmer expresses the same frustrated emotional immaturity. There certainly may be reasons to object to federal legislation. And there may be (and history has proven have been) times when the federal government oversteps its bounds. But we have a legal process in place to resolve these disputes -- one that Emmer, as a member of the bar, has sworn to uphold.

Emmer certainly is free to have his own opinion on how to deal with the question of federal overstepping. But, as governor, he has responsibility for the state, not just himself. He can either act like a grown-up or revert to the adolescent tantrum his proposal represents.

//I'd like Emmer to firm up his thinking on this but if you listen, I think he's mainly trying to create a more streamlined system to push back against federal overreach.

There would nothing "streamlined" about this process at all, two systems of nullification are never simpler one. Emmer says he recognizes the authority of the supreme court process, but he want's to establish a mechanism why which he can ignore it, so what then? What happens when the court declares a given law constitutional and one of the branches of a state government decides the same law is unconstitutional? This a recipe for endless conflict both in the courts and possibly in the real world. This wouldn't an academic dispute, at some point really important things would come into play. Let's say some state decides opt out of federal laws governing water rights and distribution, the feds respond by withholding farm subsidies. The state then retaliates by banning interstate traffic. This is a streamlined process? This is recipe for civil war, literally.

This has nothing to do with streamlining anything, this is about constructing a parallel government that can pick and choose which federal laws it will apply. It's about creating a place where right wing ideology doesn't have to worry about being trumped by the constitution.

John says//Any assertion that to question whether the federal government has exceeded the limited authority granted it in the constitution is an attempt to overthrow that very constitution seems irrational at best, and fear-mongering at worst.

Because I actually think it's important to recognize megalomania in politicians and other people seeking power I'll respond to this. Emmer isn't simply questioning federal authority, he's designing an unconstitutional system to ignore federal authority. You people act like like no one ever questions federal authority or debates the constitutionality of laws, in fact we do this all the time. We have a process for constitutional challenges that has been working for over 200 years. Emmer's proposal nullifies that process, so yes, he is seeking to overthrow the constitution. If that frightens you so be it.

Mr. Swift//Reasonable people of all ideological persuasions agree that the federal government has overstepped its mandate; the specific cases will differ, but the conclusion is the same.

I don't usually read let alone respond to Mr. Swifts comments but this one actually illustrates my point about megalomania. Yes reasonable people can disagree, but normal people understand that being a citizen or a member of a community, (especially in the United States) means accepting the legitimacy of law. We can argue, but sometimes you lose the argument and you have to live accordingly. Only megalomaniacs think they ought to be able to ignore laws they don't agree with. We have a process whereby reasonable people settle their disagreements, Emmer isn't trying to participate in that process, he wants to set it aside in favor one that he thinks will be more beneficial to his ideology. There's nothing reasonable about this, it's an invitation to political conflict in lieu of electoral politics.

You want to argue about some law fine, let's argue, but you may lose the argument. And if you lose that argument in court, once the appeals have been exhausted, you're stuck with the ruling, even if you disagree with it. That's what living in a nation of laws means. The last time someone tried Emmer's idea of taking their marbles and playing somewhere else we had four years of bloody civil war.

This is why this constitutional conservative stuff is such a sham. It has nothing to with respecting the constitution, it's all about reshaping the constitution according to ideological demands. All I can say if you think a bunch of megalomaniacs are going deliver unto you more freedoms and liberty at the end of the day... you're not the first ones to make that mistake.

I think I have this figured out.

Emmer is an Attorney, right?

All this conflict that would be created, is really about a jobs bill. Full employment for Attorneys :>)

Lets be clear, if Emmer is seriously concerned about restraining federal power, this is a completely unrealistic and inept proposal for doing so.

If he really understood his own proposal, he would blanch at the prospect of the Minneapolis legislative delegation deciding what federal laws will apply in Minnesota. There would be a long list on both ideological sides that would find one third of either the state house or senate who opposed them. Labor would probably achieve its fondest wish of getting rid of Taft-Hartley. And the libertarians could abolish Social Security in Minnesota.

This is also typical Republican crises politics. Create a crisis and hope you can exploit the resulting environment of fear and hysteria. They recognize no substantive issues because they're not interested in governing, and they have no ideas, so they make this stuff up. Remember when Mark Kennedy tried to make the line item veto a campaign issue a while back? Ten years after the courts ruled it was unconstitutional on the federal level. The guy wasn't even running for president and he was arguing for a line item veto for the president. He was a lawyer to.

to John E Iacono: I fail to see how this outcry helps Mr. Emmer's position. If many folks feel he is proposing something that can't possibly work or be constitutional, whether he does it out of personal passion or scheming manipulation, how does he profit? He IS a scary candidate. His best bet, however, is that his opponents are uncharismatic or unknown. Minnesota deserves better than all of them.

Scott:

It's called free publicity, which an unopposed candidate can always use to keep his name before the public.

And it's only bad publicity to those who turn people off with outrage, and exaggerated opposition.

And have you noticed? They have now dropped the barrage about "which cuts will you make?"

John -- agreed.