Minnesota Capitol. Photo: Wikipedia

Senate Republicans introduced a constitutional amendment Wednesday that would make Minnesota the first state to require a two-thirds majority vote in the legislature to approve federal laws affecting the state. “Minnesotans enjoy inherent, natural, God-given rights,” the bill states, and “Citizens of Minnesota are sovereign individuals, subject to Minnesota law and immune from any federal laws that exceed the federal government’s enumerated constitutional powers.”

The bill was introduced by state Sens. Mike Parry of Waseca, Bill Ingebrigtsen of Alexandria, and David Hann of Eden Prairie, and is a companion to a House bill introduced by Reps. Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa, Bruce Anderson of Buffalo, and Tom Emmer of Delano last month.

Emmer has also authored a resolution that would lay claim to Minnesota’s sovereignty: “[T]he State of Minnesota hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.”

The bills are part of a larger conservative push, following the election of President Barack Obama, to give states power to reject federal policies. Seven red states passed Tenth Amendment resolutions following Obama’s inauguration: Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Tennessee. Five others have passed a resolution since health care reform passed: Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming.

While Republicans in several states have proposed similar legislation, Minnesota’s bills would be the first to include legislative action — the two-thirds vote requirement — against the federal government.

Republicans in Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District have gone even further: they recently passed a resolution calling for Minnesota to secede from union if the federal government exceeds its authority.

Here’s the full text of the bill introduced on Wednesday:

Section 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.

An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the amendment is adopted, a section shall be added to article I, to read:

Sec. 18. Citizens of Minnesota are sovereign individuals, subject to Minnesota law and immune from any federal laws that exceed the federal government’s enumerated constitutional powers. A federal law does not apply in Minnesota unless that law is approved by a two-thirds vote of the members of each house of the legislature and is signed by the governor. Before voting to approve a federal law, each legislator must individually affirm that the legislator has read the federal law and understands it. Citizens of Minnesota enjoy inherent, natural, God-given rights as reflected in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. Minnesota citizens have the right to seek redress for any alleged violation of these rights committed by the state of Minnesota exclusively through a jury trial in a Minnesota court and through enactment of a change in Minnesota law.

1.19 Sec. 2. SUBMISSION TO VOTERS.
The proposed amendment must be submitted to the people at the 2010 general election. The question submitted must be: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to affirm the sovereignty of Minnesota citizens by requiring two-thirds legislative approval before a federal law becomes effective in Minnesota, and by ensuring the right of citizens to seek redress for any alleged violation of constitutional rights?

(Wikimedia commons)

A SurveyUSA/KSTP poll released this week shows a high level of support in Minnesota for the recognition of same-sex couples. Sixty-four percent of respondents said the state should offer same-sex marriage or civil unions. Only 34 percent said same-sex couples should have no legal relationship rights.

Specifically, 29 percent favored same-sex marriage and 35 percent supported civil unions. Democrats were more likely to support same-sex marriage (45 percent) while independents favored civil unions (42 percent). Republicans favored no rights (57 percent).

In addition, Minnesotans said they oppose a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, with only 44 percent supporting it and 52 percent in opposition.

Bills that would legalize same-sex marriage as well as civil unions were offered at the Minnesota Capitol this session, but died in committee.

House Rules Committee Chair Tony Sertich didn’t let the committee take up the proposal because the amendment’s current official sponsor, Deputy Minority Leader Steve Smith, wasn’t present. Sertich — who warned in a floor debate this month that the rule change would open access to “www.anybody.com” — said he’d consult with Smith and “we will be coming forward with something on the bill.”

To at least one interested observer, that smacked of legislative run-around. ”There’s procedural gimmicks that have been put in place for the purpose of not seriously resolving this,” Shawn Towle of Checks and Balances told a group of online media workers after the committee adjourned.

“I’ve got to take that back,” Towle continued. “They’re going to seriously resolve it, but it’s going to be on their time, not on our time.”

Towle said it wasn’t clear how or when the proposed amendment — which would insert the words “online media” into existing House rules on press credentials to achieve parity across print, broadcast and Web-based media — will get a public hearing.

Is the question, with its attendant First Amendment issues, ripe for a hearing in a court of law? “As soon as I find a lawyer” who wants to make a reputation with the case, Towle said.

Note: Minnesota Independent’s Paul Demko requested press credentials today. I requested permission from House Sergeant-at-arms Sandy Dicke to record today’s hearing on video but was turned down.

She cited fairness issues with allowing one online media outfit access without rules in place. And she’s been part of discussions that remain unresolved about how to let online media cover the House. Hang-ups include concerns about crowding, noise and lack of institutions to provide the House with recourse in the case of “bad information.”

“We understand that online could be the only media in the future,”  Dicke said.

What else isn’t allowed in committee hearing rooms besides online media cameras? Sandwiches. A spectator in the gallery seating was quietly eating one when a legislative staffer in a crisp white shirt approached and appeared to inform him of a House ban on food. Perhaps because of a subclause for cases like this in which less than 50 percent of the sandwich remains, the man was allowed to wolf down the rest. Within 10 minutes, the committee adjourned for lunch.