Will Missouri Nullify Obamacare?

House Bill No. 1534: Declares the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as Unconstitutional

Website: http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?year=2012&bill=HB%201534

The limitation of the national government’s power is affirmed under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves; Whenever the national government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the Constitution, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their national government… Although the several states have granted supremacy to laws and treaties made pursuant to the powers granted in the Constitution, such supremacy does not apply to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, because that act exceeds the powers granted to the national government;” – text from HB1534 

Since President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010, many Constitutionalists agree that the Federal law exceeds the power granted to Congress under the United States Constitution. Because of this, many state leaders around our nation are stepping forward to protect our individual freedom to choose – and voicing a need for the proper exercising of tenth amendment and state nullification actions.


Five and Counting: New Shoreham RI Rejects NDAA

            Less than one month ago I petitioned the New Shoreham (Block Island), Rhode Island, Town Council to pass a resolution in opposition to section 1021 of the NDAA. In 2003 the Council passed a resolution in opposition to the Patriot Act, so I knew they would give my petition a fair shake.

            Thankfully, the Town Council righteously passed the resolution tonight; which demonstrates the great utility in local governments to fight unconstitutional Federal acts. State legislative bureaucratic morass slows the passage of legislation. Citizen disconnect mitigates individual legislator’s accountability for failure to act. Conversely, local governments move fast and the limited number of council members eliminates plausible deniability for failure to act. Local leaders live in the communities they represent, and are held to account for their action, or inaction, daily.

            Included in my petition to the Council were two great resources available to all citizens: 1) the model resolution drafted by us here at the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition and our friends at the Tenth Amendment Center and 2) the model letter to local governing bodies. I also published a copy of the model letter in the local New Shoreham paper which brought out concerned community members and publically put the onus on the Council.

            The beauty of the resolution is that it comprehensively lays forth exactly how the NDAA offends our fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. It educates and sets the table for a productive meeting. The model letter is a great resource because it answers the question that many local governing bodies have; why should local bodies act and not just leave it to the state legislatures or Congress? The compelling answer is that local councils have taken an oath to uphold the constitution, they have the ability to respond to unconstitutional acts, and thus, they must.

            At the first Town Council meeting last week, the counselors were well informed and asked all the right questions. They pointed to the provision of section 1021 that seeks to preserve existing law and authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens and legal aliens, and asked; does this not protect individual rights? I responded that the laws and authorities are not clear, and importantly, the office of President, under both Bush and Obama, has professed the authority indefinitely detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force. I pointed to the Padilla case, where the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the President may indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant. Padilla had been held in military detention for 3.5 years with no trial. Thereafter, the Supreme Court refused to consider the appeal after Padilla was transferred to civilian jurisdiction, invoking a sharp rebuke from three Supreme Court justices. 

            In my opinion, the Supreme Court was derelict in its duty to consider the issue and perpetuated the grey area of authorities NDAA section 1021 seeks to preserve. I argued that there should never be any vagueness or grey area concerning the fundamental rights the NDAA purports to eviscerate.  Moreover, the jurisdictional game the Office of President played with Padilla undermines its credibility in dealing with purported enemy combatants. Under the Padilla precedent, the President can simply hold another U.S. citizen for 3.5 years and then transfer him to civilian jurisdiction in order to avoid Supreme Court review and establishment of concrete authority concerning the President’s powers under the 2001 AUMF and the NDAA.


NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia House 96-4

On Tuesday, February 14th, the Virginia House of Delegates voted in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160). The final vote was 96-4.

The legislative goal of HB1160 is to codify in Virginia law noncompliance with what many are referring to as the “kidnapping provisions” of section 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). The official summary of 1160:

“A BILL to prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

HB1160 is sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall and was introduced on 01-16-12. It previously passed out of Sub-Committee #2 Civil, by a vote of 6-3 and the Courts of Justice Committee by a vote of 16-0. After a series of action alerts by the Tenth Amendment Center nationally, and a number of supporting groups locally – Courts of Justice committee members heard from the people they represent that a full house hearing and vote to reject the NDAA is what they wanted. With a 96-4 vote, the Virginia House sent a message on indefinite detentions – a resounding NO!


Florida to Consider Medical Marijuana Bills

Two proposals are before the Florida Legislature to put an amendment on the ballot next November to the State Constitution which would allow medical use of cannabis by citizens.

House Joint Resolution 353 and Senate Joint Resolution 1028 both have been resubmitted from last year’s session and HJR 353 has been sent to the Criminal Justice Subcommittee where it has had its first reading and SJR 1028 has been reintroduced to the Senate. Both bills have similar wording to be put to the citizens of Florida as a proposed amendment to the states constitution. If the bills are passed then the proposed amendment would need to receive 60 percent affirmative votes for passage since it would be an amendment to the state constitution.

Both bills propose amending the State Constitution to provide a patient or primary caregiver charged with a violation of the state’s criminal laws related to the patient’s medical use of cannabis, also known as marijuana, with a defense to the charge if the patient has a debilitating condition and the physician, in the context of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, determines that the patient might benefit from the medical use of cannabis.

HJR 353 was introduced by Clemens (CO-SPONSORS) Bullard; Kriseman; Pafford; Rehwinkel Vasilinda

SJR 1028 was introduced by Bullard


Maryland joins states considering handcuffing TSA gropers

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Feb. 15, 2012) – Last Friday, Maryland joined a growing list of states considering legislation that would say, “No!” to TSA groping.

Delegate Glen Glass (R – Cecil and Hartford Counties) filed HB1111, which would prohibit a public servant from conducting searches for the purpose of entering a publicly accessible building or utilizing a public mode of transportation without probable cause or express consent.

The legislation also specifically prohibits “sexual harassment” by agents, defining harassment as, “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly touching the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of the other person, including touching through clothing; or causing physical contact with the other person when the public servant knows or should reasonably believe that the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.”


Utah Considers Bill Asserting State Sovereignty

The Utah legislature is considering a bill asserting State Sovereignty during this session and the legislation recently passed out of the House Judiciary Committee.

The vote tally was 10-0 with 3 abstaining.

H.B.141 …”reaffirms state sovereignty and reserves all rights and claims, including set-off, for damages, losses, costs, and expenses incurred but not fully reimbursed against any amounts that the state owes the federal government.”

This bill:

  1. reaffirms the state’s sovereign rights as outlined in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America;
  2. provides that the state is relieved of all liability for the payment of funds owed to the federal government for which the state exercises its rights of set-off.

Rep. LaVar Christensen (R – District: 48) sponsors the Utah bill.

This bill, by asserting Utah Sovereignty and rights as established in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, lays out the understanding of the Founders that the Federal government is the agent of the states and not the other way around.


Four and Counting. Fairfax, CA Rejects NDAA

In recent weeks, Colorado counties of Weld, Fremont and El Paso passed resolutions opposing sections 1021 and/or 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act – what some refer to as the “kidnapping provisions” of the act. And now, the town of Fairfax, California joined them in this stand by passing resolution #12-11.

It states, in part, that “we Strongly affirm our loyalty to the rights and liberties enshrined within the Constitution of the United States, including the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the Sixth Amendment right to trial.”

The town of Fairfax has an extensive history of protecting its residents’ civil rights and liberties. This stand is best embodied in its resolution rejecting the USA PATRIOT Act a few years ago, which led hundreds of other municipalities across the nation to emulate their example. The Fairfax resolution against the NDAA takes denouncing one step further by requiring non-compliance within the Town as well. It states that they will:

“Instruct all our Town of Fairfax agencies to decline requests by federal agencies acting under detention powers granted by the NDAA that could infringe upon residents’ freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, or rights to counsel.”


NDAA Resolution to Be Presented to NC State Legislators

North Carolina Rep. Glen Bradley, (R), intends to introduce a resolution at the General Assembly’s “short session” to address provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes the “indefinite detention” of U.S. Citizens by declaring the United States a part of the “battlefield.”

The resolution that will be presented, NDAA RESOLUTION FOR NORTH CAROLINA STATE LEGISLATORS, states in no uncertain terms numerous violations of the United States Constitution and the North Carolina Constitution, and then it concludes with what the state legislator by passing this resolution attend to do about it.

For the above and forgoing reasons, this Legislature expresses its belief that the NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 (NDAA) is unconstitutional in authorizing the President to use war powers, the “law of war,” and/or martial law in the United States and its territories over any person, including citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States not in the military forces, and over citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States, who are not in the military forces, anywhere in the world.

FURTHER, the Legislature expresses its sense that all provisions of the NDAA which are unconstitutional, including as noted herein above, were and are null and void from their inception and are not enforceable in this state, and it is the express policy of state’s Legislature that no officer, employee, or agent of the state will implement, enforce or otherwise support, directly or indirectly, any of the above noted unconstitutional provisions, and that a violation of such policy will be deemed a violation of their oath of office and employment agreement, and will subject them to disciplinary action up to and including termination.


Legislative Alert: They’re Laughing At Us!

I don’t understand politicians.  Truthfully, I probably never will.

You and I make decisions every day to do the right thing, even when the benefit to us may not be quite so great as not doing the right thing.

Unfortunately the majority of our state legislators seem unable to do what you and I do every day.

For instance, the subcommittee of the Tennessee House Judiciary Committee had the chance to do the right thing on Wednesday to protect Tennesseans from unconstitutional encroachments of the federal government and resist the evil indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA by voting for HB2619/SB2669.

Instead, they chose to hem and haw and stall.

Van Irion, the Lead Counsel for the Liberty Legal Foundation and former congressional candidate, is one of the co-authors of HB2619 which went before the subcommittee.  He testified before the subcommittee for about an hour.  His report, along with a link to the video of the proceedings, is below: