Bill
SJR 19
Kentucky asserts state sovereignty to nullify or refuse to recognize federal acts it deems unconstitutional, enabling state resistance to federal power.
Status & basic info
- Bill type: Joint resolution (SJR 19)
- Title (as provided): “A JOINT RESOLUTION relating to unconstitutional acts that would undermine the rights of Kentucky citizens and the sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.”
- Introduced: November 12, 2024
- Referred to: State & Local Government (Senate) (per provided bill info)
- Note: The document packet supplied contains multiple unrelated “SJR 19” texts from other states. The summary below covers the Kentucky-focused joint resolution portion (UNOFFICIAL COPY 25 RS BR 183) included in the materials.
Purpose and intent
- The resolution affirms the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s claim of sovereign authority to “nullify” or refuse to recognize federal acts that the state regards as unconstitutional or as usurping powers not delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.
- It reiterates principles of limited federal authority, separation of powers, and state sovereignty, grounding its arguments in the Kentucky Constitution, the U.S. Constitution (including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments), historic Supreme Court decisions (Marbury v. Madison, Ex parte Siebold, Norton v. Shelby County, Miranda v. Arizona), and the original Kentucky Resolutions drafted by Jefferson and Madison.
Key provisions and declarations
- Affirms that the federal government was granted only limited, enumerated powers by the people and the states (Article I, §8 of the U.S. Constitution), and that any federal action exceeding those powers is “void.”
- Declares that lawmaking power resides with Congress, and that executive orders, agency rulemaking, judicial opinions, or treaties that purport to create law are usurpations of power.
- Cites a state-level “vertical separation of powers” argument (states superior in their reserved spheres) and invokes historical arguments for a state’s right to “nullify” federal acts deemed unconstitutional.
- Explicitly rejects federal or international encroachments listed in the text (examples include rulemaking or enforcement by federal agencies or unelected boards, presidential executive orders, federal court orders, and ceding authority to international organizations). The text also references rejection of global initiatives such as “global digital passports” and central bank digital currencies (the bill text truncates mid-list).
- Asserts that Kentucky citizens do not consent to federal actions that abrogate rights or transfer sovereignty to international bodies.
Who or what would be affected
- Primarily: state government entities, elected officials (who would be asked to recognize the resolution’s principles), and federal-state relations.
- Potential downstream effects: could be cited to justify state resistance to particular federal rules, regulations, or orders; might prompt legal actions or directives by state officials (e.g., Attorney General) challenging federal actions.
- It is declaratory in character: the resolution states Kentucky’s position but, as drafted, does not itself create new criminal penalties or directly amend statutory state law in the excerpt provided.
Procedural and legal considerations
- The resolution is largely declaratory and constitutional in approach. Historically, claims of state “nullification” raise immediate legal conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and longstanding federal jurisprudence.
- If adopted, the resolution could be used politically or legally to support litigation by the Commonwealth (e.g., Attorney General challenges) or to justify administrative noncompliance with federal initiatives — but the text provided does not set out specific enforcement mechanisms, remedies, or binding directives for agencies.
- The text provided is truncated; some provisions or specific directives (if any) may be missing from the excerpt.
Potential impacts and implications
- Symbolic / political: Reinforces a state sovereignty message and could mobilize state-level resistance to federal policies the legislature deems unconstitutional.
- Legal / operational: Could lead to new litigation or formal legal opinions from the state Attorney General; may complicate federal-state cooperation, and — if acted upon in practice — could risk loss of federal funds or federal preemption disputes.
- Constitutional tension: The resolution relies on contested legal theories (nullification) that have been largely rejected by federal courts; adoption would likely trigger federal judicial review if the Commonwealth took concrete steps to refuse compliance with federal law or orders.
Caveat
- The full resolution text in the packet was truncated and the materials included unrelated SJR 19 texts from other states. This summary treats the Kentucky-centered text (UNOFFICIAL COPY 25 RS BR 183) as the subject. If you want, I can (1) produce a redlined extract of the full Kentucky text if you provide it, or (2) separately summarize the other SJR 19 materials from the document packet (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Alaska, etc.).
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
