We have just filed an amicus curiae (”friend of the court”) brief with the Supreme Court arguing that (1) under current Supreme Court rulings, Obamacare’s individual mandate, if it can be justified at all, must be justified under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause, and (2) scholarly research into the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause…Details
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Feb. 16, 2012) – The number of state and local governments lining up in opposition to the detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act continues to grow.
Last Friday, Maryland legislators joined the rising chorus against government sanctioned kidnapping. Delegates Michael A. McDermott (R-District 38B) and Michael D. Smigiel, Sr. (R-District 36) submitted HJR 12, which “condemns specified provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that threaten United States citizens with unlawful detention without trial in violation of the citizens’ right to the guarantees of habeas corpus and due process and urges the United States Congress to reconsider and repeal certain provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.”Details
After the 2000 presidential election which George W. Bush won the majority in the Electoral College but lost the national popular vote, another attack on state soverneinty has gone largely unnoticed. This time it is coming from an organization called National Popular Vote Inc., who describes their effort as a “reform” the Electoral College.
The agreement among the states pledges the electoral votes from each adopting state to the winner of the the national popular vote, regardless of the popular vote in that state. A statement on the group’s website reads “The bill would reform the Electoral College so that the Electoral College reflects the choice of the nation’s voters for the president of the United States. The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election”.Details
House Joint Resolution No.72: Allows for vote on amending Missouri Constitution in relation to health care freedom
“That the liberty inherent in each citizen includes autonomy in decisions regarding lawful health care-related services or products and the manner in which contracting parties may agree for payment to be made for such services or products. No government official or agency shall have any authority either to compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system, or to impose any sort of direct or indirect penalty, tax, fee, or levy for choosing not to participate in such a system; nor shall any government official or agency make a citizen’s right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful health care services subject to any form of direct or indirect penalty, tax, fee, or levy. “– Text from HJR72
When President Obama disregarded the Constitutional concerns of Americans by signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010 – one can’t help but think of Patrick Henry’s prophetic statement at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of June 5, 1788: “….there is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive powers; the powers of a King: He is to be supported in extravagant magnificence: So that the whole of our property may be taken by this American Government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure….”
However, in Missouri – that could be about to change.Details
Another brave state legislator has joined the resistance to federal tyranny by defending the constitutional right of states to govern themselves.
On February 3, Oklahoma Rep. Charles Key (R-Oklahoma City, left) offered a bill that would officially request that the Congress of the United States repeal Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Furthermore, the legal effect of those two sections would be void in Oklahoma.
In a press release accompanying the introduction of the bill, Rep. Key explained his motivation for putting forth the proposal:
President Barack Obama has said he would not hold citizens indefinitely; it is deplorable that he would sign into law legislation that contains clauses that would authorize him to do just that. Oklahomans have taken notice of this repugnant new law and as state lawmakers it is our duty to apply pressure to Congress and the president to undo this debacle.
This commendable attitude echoes that of another state lawmaker, Brian Nieves of Missouri, whoexplained to The New American his reason for sponsoring similar legislation in the Show Me State:
It is time for the members of the State Legislatures of this great Republic to stand up and assert the proper relationship between the several states and the federal government. For far too long I’ve heard state legislators say, “We can’t do that — the feds won’t let us,” when instead, it should be members of our U.S. Congress saying, “We can’t do that — the states won’t let us!”
The preamble to the 15-page concurrent resolution lays out an appropriate affront and a laudable tone for the Sooner lawmaker’s determination to nullify illegal federal encroachment into the sovereign territory of the states. The proposal declares that
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 is unconstitutional; directing Oklahoma Congressional Delegation to commence efforts to repeal certain sections of the act; expressing belief that the unconstitutional sections of the act are not enforceable within the state and prohibiting state officers from enforcing them; and directing distribution.
From there, the text of the bill lays out a well-reasoned response to the power afforded to the President by the NDAA to deploy the U.S. military to apprehend and indefinitely detain American citizens on mere suspicion of posing a threat to the security of the homeland.
For example, Rep. Key’s resolution plainly and without reservation appeals to the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma for support of his defense of state sovereignty:Details