Horner: Emmer’s nullify proposal meant to ‘destroy government’

Tom Horner, Tom Emmer

Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner took issue with a proposal by Republican Tom Emmer that would allow Minnesota to opt out of federal legislation that its leaders don’t like. Horner said the idea would be disastrous for Minnesota businesses and the environment, going so far as to call the measure an effort to “destroy government.”

“I think for any candidate to take such a hard line in supporting the movement to nullify federal laws, to say Minnesota is an island to itself, and we can just cavalierly disregard whatever federal laws we think aren’t politically acceptable is horrible for Minnesota,” Horner said in an interview with The Uptake on Tuesday.

Horner said opting out of federal laws would make things harder for multi-state corporations who depend on uniformity in laws, and that it could impact environmental regulation.

“Air and water pollution don’t stop at the border. We need federal regulation around clean air and clean water,” he said. “It’s just the kind of proposal that is meant to satisfy a handful of people who want to destroy government.”

Emmer has taken some flak from Democrats for an op-ed he wrote in the Star Tribune about his ideas on allowing Minnesota to nullify federal laws. David Lillehaug, a DFL lawyer countered the “nullification” argument saying it is unconstitutional, and MinnPost’s Eric Black asked Emmer if he knew whether his proposal would pass constitutional muster. He didn’t.

“Enough is enough. As governor, I will push back against this federal encroachment into our local affairs,” Emmer wrote. “I believe that our Legislature should have a voice in whether federal laws should be made to apply to Minnesotans. Minnesotans should have a say in the laws that govern them.”

He added. “It is truly bizarre that my opponents in the race for governor actually oppose letting Minnesotans have a say in the laws that govern them.”

Emmer has sponsored bills that would allow Minnesota to decline conforming with federal laws; he cosponsored one that would require the legislature to approve all federal laws by a two-thirds vote, and he authored another that would require the governor, the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate to approve the federal law.

Lillehaug, in his op-ed, called the second measure unconstitutional.

“Emmer styles himself a ‘constitutional conservative,’ but this proposal is neither constitutional nor conservative.” he said. “In fact, it runs head-on into the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that federal laws ‘shall be the supreme Law of the Land,’ notwithstanding anything in a state’s constitution or laws to the contrary. When Minnesota became a state in 1858, it signed on to this form of Union.”

Eric Black, analyzing both editorials at MinnPost, asked Emmer if his plan was constitutional.

“I don’t know if it’s constitutional; I think its worthy of discussion,” Emmer said.

Here’s the video of Horner’s remarks: