Governor: Take A Stand Against NDAA

cross-posted from the North Carolina Tenth Amendment Center

While we compile our letters to the legislature, Attorney General and others in our State Government, we thought we would share our request to Governor Perdue. We’ll let you know her response when and if we receive one.

Office of the Governor Bev Perdue
20301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-0301
(919) 733-5811

Dear Governor Perdue;

The NDAA is the single biggest evisceration of our Bill of Rights in our lifetime. Never before have the definitions of terrorist and terrorist supporter been so vague and defined so broadly; never before have we codified into law a president’s non-existent authority to arrest and detain American citizens on American soil. The arrest and detention provision of NDAA should in the words of Congressman Ron Paul, “chill us to our core.”

As Governor, your duty to protect North Carolina’s citizens is clear. Towards this end we are urging you to do the following immediately:

1. Issue a formal and official statement condemning this act by Congress.

2. Ask the state legislature to author and pass a bill of nullification rendering the arrest and detention provisions of NDAA void and of no force inside the State of North Carolina. Sign this bill immediately upon passage.

3. Advise North Carolina’s Sheriffs as the Chief Law Enforcement Officers in their Counties to meet any attempts to implement of these provisions in their counties with the appropriate force to prevent such implementation.

Details

New Jersey Tenth Amendment resolution on the table

By: Brenda Poland

The New Jersey Assembly will consider a Tenth Amendment Resolution during the 2012 legislative session.

ACR50  claims state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted by Constitution to federal government. While this resolution does not carry the force of law, it includes forceful language to strengthen the foundation for further state measures designed to nullify federal usurpation.

WHEREAS, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments; and

WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson called for “the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies;” and

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people;” and

Details

The People’s Power: Jury Nullification

While once considered a very important role in our nation, jury duty is now most commonly viewed as another hindrance in the lives of the American people. I wonder if people knew just how much power they wield as jury members, if that would change? I hope so.

The first Chief Justice, John Jay, stated the following to the first jury in the first Supreme Court trial held in the United States:

It may not be amiss, here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court; for, as on the one hand, it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable that the courts are the best judges of law. But still, both objects are lawfully within your power of decision (Georgia vs Brailsford 1794).

Details

The Answer To The NDAA: Nullification

cross-posted from the Maine Tenth Amendment Center

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has been a heated topic of discussion across the Internet, while an ongoing media blackout continues. To their credit however, Fox News asked a question regarding the law at a recent Republican Presidential Debate. While former Senator Rick Santorum noted that U.S. citizens detained do have a right to have their day in court and Congressman Ron Paul stated the legislation was a breach of the judicial system, former Governor Mitt Romney gave President Barack Obama an endorsement of faith. Stating that he doesn’t think President Obama “will abuse this power,” he also said he would’ve signed the law.

And there were boos. But why? Shouldn’t all Americans favor locking up terrorists who wish to do harm to us?

If only the answer that simple. The trouble that arises for any member of the U.S. Government is that inconvenient thing called the law, which is supposed to be made pursuant to the Constitution. Article 6 clearly states that this document and all pursuant laws will be “supreme law of the land,” thus implying laws that are made in direct contradiction are null and void. Under the Constitution, citizens are granted the right to due process of law and cannot be stripped of that right without going to trial.

Details

Is the Tea Party Kaput Already?

I find it hard to believe , but the National Tea Party is nothing but a shill for their Republican masters.

On election night of the New Hampshire primary, a leader of the Tea Party (I won’t mention her name) appeared on Fox News and claimed Mit Romney was a conservative the Tea Party could rally around. Huh? The same Mit Romney who gave his fellow liberal denizens in Massachusetts “Romney Care” the foreshadow of “Obama Care”? The same  Mit Romney who  fails to take a firearms survey offered by the  Gun Owners of America and who supports the banning of semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. Mit Romney who can find not one single government agency he would abolish?  Not the IRS, Homeland (Secret State Police) Security, Education, Agriculture, Medicaid (Socialized Medicine), etc… Not one? This is a man the Tea Party can rally around?

And what about Newt Gingrich. He leads in many polls among “Tea Party” activist.

Last May, he criticized as “right-wing social engineering’’ the proposal of Representative Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, to convert Medicare into a voucher program so seniors could privately purchase insurance. Following a firestorm of protest from conservatives, Gingrich quickly backed off, apologized to Ryan, and said his “words were inaccurate and unfortunate.’’

Newt on firearms? (From Gun Owners of America)

After initially having a Pro-Gun record, his  GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.

Details

New Jersey Senate vs the TSA

Two pieces of legislation have been reintroduced in the 2012 legislative session of the New Jersey State Senate, both dealing with the Transportation Security Administration’s intrusive procedures adopted at airports in the past year.

The first, SR12 (SR91 in the previous session), is a non-binding resolution urging the TSA to terminate its recent changes to its pat-down procedures and enjoys bipartisan support. The Primary Sponsor is Michael J. Doherty (R-Washington). Diane B. Allen (R – Burlington), Richard J. Codey (D – Livingston), Steven V. Oroho (R-Sparta) and Jeff Van Drew (D – Cape May) have signed on as cosponsors.

The previous legislative session featured a similar resolution in the General Assembly (AR127), but so far,  no record of a companion bill exists in the lower chamber.

The resolution alludes to the invasiveness of TSA pat-down procedures.

“Reports have indicated that in some instances overzealous TSA employees have carried out these new procedures in a manner sufficiently aggressive to rise to the level of an inappropriate invasion of personal privacy, from which an individual would ordinarily be protected under the laws of this State.”

The second bill, S277 (S2509 in the previous session), specifies that certain images generated by body scans violate State statutes prohibiting invasion of privacy, pornography and endangerment of child welfare under certain circumstances. A federal, state or local agent found in violation of this bill, if it becomes a law, would not be considered immune from civil or criminal liability resulting from the creation of such an image.

Details

Envirostition

This video was shared in my facebook news stream today. Catchy tune… Note how the video conveniently debunks itself at 1:15.  No chance that facts will interfere with the cultists’ mythology, though.   Maybe next they’ll sit us all around a campfire and tell us the story about how the Department of Agriculture saved Yorick the Brave…

Details

The EPA vs the Constitution

by Ron Paul

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments in Sackett v. EPA, a case of blatant federal agency overreach and abuse of private property rights. Without any proof or reason, and no chance for appeal, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that a small single home lot was a “protected wetland.” The owners, Mike and Chantell Sackett, were ordered to halt construction already underway, to remove all of the work already done, and plant trees and shrubs consistent with a wetlands environment. After making these costly changes, the Sackets then would have to wait several years for the EPA to decide if they would be allowed the use of their own property. Refusal to comply with these outrageous and arbitrary commandments would result in daily fines greater than the value of the property!

Outraged, the Sacketts sought relief through the courts, but court after court determined that they had no standing. The actions of the EPA were not subject to judicial review until a mountain of fees had already been assessed. This is just another example not only of how federal agencies wield enormous power over average citizens, but also how little practical protection our court system provides when such citizens are harmed by those agencies.

Details