Washington state legislators introduce NDAA nullification bill

(Jan. 30, 2012) – With the introduction of the Washington State Preservation of Liberty Act, Evergreen State legislators have the opportunity to exercise their right and duty, and interpose on behalf of their citizens to halt a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of federal power.

NOTE: Model Legislation available here – contact your state legislators to ask that they introduce today!

Five Washington state representatives introduced HB 2759 on Tuesday. The bill condemns the unlawful detention of United States citizens and lawful resident aliens under the National Defense Authorization Act, and forbids “any state employee, member of the Washington National Guard or any agent of a corporation doing business with the state” to cooperate in the federal detainment or investigation of a U.S. citizen or resident alien.

It also prohibits the United States military from conducting within the boundaries of the state of Washington, an investigation or detainment of a United States citizen or lawful resident alien located within the state of Washington, except for a few narrowly prescribed circumstances.

Details

Act Now: Tool to Help Say NO to NDAA Kidnapping

The following is a sample letter text that you can use to send along with NDAA Nullification legislation (HERE) to state and local legislators in your area.

Dear ______,

Please accept this constituent-petition containing draft legislation to nullify the unconstitutional 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (“2012 NDAA”). As a local leader, it is up to you to defend our liberties from unconstitutional and anti-liberty acts by the Federal Government. I implore you to introduce and pass this most necessary legislation.

Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA purports to authorize the President to designate as an enemy combatant any U.S. citizen or legal resident alien found within the United States that the President suspects “was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”  Those covered by section 1021 are unclear and it is subject to abuse because it is not limited to individuals directly responsible for terrorism or belligerent acts; it applies to vague ‘substantial support’ for undefined ‘associated forces.’

The NDAA does not even provide the citizen or legal resident alien a forum to contest the President’s determination of enemy combatant status. Section 1021 then purports to authorize the President to utilize the military to detain and dispose of those U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens according to the Law of War, including: (1) indefinite detention without charge or trial until the end of hostilities, (2) prosecution through a Military Commission, or (3) transfer to a foreign country or foreign entity.   Indefinite military detention without charge or trial, military tribunals, and the transfer to a foreign jurisdiction of U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens subverts civil authority to the military and defies our most fundamental liberties and Due Process forged in the Rhode Island Constitution and the following sections of the United States Constitution;

Details

The Oath

It’s happening!

Not here!

This can’t happen here!

The call. THAT call. The terror in the woman’s voice.

“THEY’RE HERE! PLEASE HELP US! GOD HELP US!”

You know that no matter how fast you drive over these roads –  roads you know like the back of your hand, you’re going to be too late! You know her, God, you know her. You know her husband, and you’ve known them for years. The desperation in her voice, the sheer terror. And the screams as you hear the door to their house crash open, the shouts to “get down on the floor, get down on the floor!”

The phone goes dead. Oh God, I am not going to make it in time! You press harder on the gas pedal, but you know it is already too late.

This isn’t some random person. This is someone you know; not a close friend, but someone who grew up in your community. They seemed like a really nice couple. He was a little strange, always wearing that camouflage jacket and talking about the government. You know the type, the “tin foil hat people”, the “conspiracy theorists”.  Well, you had always just chalked it up to PTSD from all those tours over there. But when they really needed you, you were not able to help. You were all the way on the other side of the county. Your county. And they needed you!

The screams are still ringing in your ears; I’m going to be too late! Desperate thoughts stream through your head. Just let it be a home invasion, just a robbery, take the money and go, leave them alone, they are good people.

Details

It is More About “State Sovereignty,” than “States Rights”

Too often, the 10th Amendment, is referenced with the term “States Right,” which in turn is a reminder of our nation’s dark history in which “states rights” was used in the secession attempts of the southern states for multiple reasons, including the continuation of the practice of slavery. It is for that reason that I offer the following.

The term “States Rights” is somewhat of a misnomer. The correct terminology would be “State Sovereignty” as imbued in the original principles and definition of “Federalism” and as enforced in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Historically, the sovereignty of the states was a critical aspect in the formation of our union of states as our nations founders and the original states were, with the exception of Hamilton and a few others, vehemently opposed to centralized governance having just freed the infant nation from the oppression of governance from a foreign central government. In fact the structure of governmental powers as defined by the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly depict a structure of governance emanating from the origin of all governance, “We the People.”

Details

Sheriff First legislation considered in Missouri

Missouri State Senator Jim Lembke has introduced SB 600. The act would amend chapter 544, RSMo by adding one new section relating to the service of warrants by agents of the federal government, requiring them to notify the county sheriff prior to service.

This Bill is identical to SB 85, introduced in 2011 by Senator Lembke.  The Bill was referred to the Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence  Committee on Jan. 26.

The Bill would add a new section to chapter 544 reading as follows:

For any warrant that is issued by a court of the United States that is to be served within the boundaries of this state, the federal agent responsible for serving the warrant shall, prior to such service, notify the sheriff of the county where the warrant is to be served. Such notification shall be made in person at the office of the county sheriff and shall identify the person subject to the warrant.

Details

To The Supporters of the NDAA

You say that:

1. The authority is specific and narrowly constrained.

Laws written by Congress do not override the Constitution, if they wish to change the Constitution they need to follow Article V. Regardless we can all site examples of laws that were “specific and narrowly constrained” that were violated by the Executive or broadened by the Courts.

2. The battlefield is wherever the enemy is.

Since they have declared the whole world to be the battlefield including the United States, when can we expect Martial Law to be declared?

3. The Fifth Amendment does not apply to unprivileged belligerents.

On American soil who determines the definition of belligerents, Congress, the President, the Military or the Courts?

Abraham Lincoln detained without habeas corpus over 13,000 citizens that disagreed with his polices including a US Representative. After the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

Woodrow Wilson again detained American citizens that spoke out against his policies during WWI or just happened to speak German in public.

And the most outrageous of all was FDR’s confining American citizens to Internment Camps without charges just because they were of Japanese descent.

Details

Nebraska: Serving Notice to DC

The Nebraska legislature will consider Legislative Bill 1171, titled The Nebraska Balance of Powers Act during the 2012 session.

State Senator Mark Christensen of Nebraska’s 44th District introduced the bill on Jan. 19.

The Nebraska Balance of Powers Act shall serve as notice and a demand that the federal government cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and which diminish the proper balance of power between the state and federal government. It also calls for the formation of a committee on nullification.

The bill is intended to reclaim the powers that the Tenth Amendment guarantees and reserves to the states and the people of Nebraska, not delegated to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution.  Such guarantee makes up part of  a compact between the people of the State of Nebraska and the United States as of the time that the State of Nebraska was admitted to statehood in 1867.

“The Constitution of the United States affirms that the sole and sovereign power to regulate a state’s business and affairs rests in the state legislature and has always been a compelling state concern and central to state sovereignty.”

Details