Maryland’s Glenn Cites Tenth in New Drug Legislation

“WHEREAS, The General Assembly enacts this Act in accordance with its police power to enact legislation for the protection of the health of its citizens, as reserved to the State in the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; now, therefore,”

…And then the bill goes on, letting the world know what will be permitted under Maryland law…in accordance with the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.  Powerful little amendment, I’d say.

It has also been a popular approach to the problem that every American currently faces, that being their central government’s insistence that DC is the ONLY place to approach and solve We the People’s problems.

Maryland House Delegate Cheryl Glenn (D-Baltimore) had found herself fed up with the bureaucratic process she was seeing- a process that had begun in the previous legislative session.  ‘Workgroups’ were assigned to study the problem of medical cannabis 12 months ago and then deliver a proposal to the state house.  Both had flaws that Glenn was not prepared to tolerate.  It’s understandable really, if you consider the number of complaints about drug policy she must hear as a representative of the people of Baltimore.

“As a legislator dedicated to addressing the needs of medical marijuana patients in Maryland, I am very disappointed in both legislative proposals being offered by the commissioned workgroup,” said Del. Glenn. “I am offering a different bill — what I believe is a common-sense approach to this issue, taking into account not only the needs of medical marijuana patients, but also the needs of the larger communities in which they live.”

The radical legislation that this maverick legislator is pushing?  In the big picture it is only a step in the process of addressing cannabis, with the establishment of lawful recognized medical applications.  Compassionate distribution systems are also created in this bill.

Readers of HB 15, the Maryland Medical Marijuana Act, will find a marked similarity in language and concept to a bill recently introduced in Idaho by conservative Republican Tom Trail.


Arizona “Neutralization” Bill Offers a Nullification Power Punch

In March of 2011, Governor Herbert of Utah signed House Bill 76. This law provides additional funding for the state’s Constitutional Defense Commission and give it the authority to try negotiation and mediation before taking the federal government to court over federal law that has been deemed unconstitutional in regard to powers given to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. This gives Utah state legislators a clear path to challenge unconstitutional federal law and, hopefully, sends a message to federal lawmakers.

This year, along with many other pending bills that challenge federal authority in the state, Arizona has introduced SB 1358 (neutralization; federal laws). This short piece of legislation packs a powerful punch. Like the Utah legislation, if signed into law, the bill will allow for a committee (the Joint Legislative Committee on Neutralization of Federal Laws) to be established. This committee will not only review new federal legislation (within 30 days of its passing), but also review all existing federal statutes, mandates, and executive orders for the purpose of determining their constitutionality, and can recommend them for neutralization as well. Unlike the Utah law, however, after committee recommendation, a simple majority vote by the state legislature on the grounds of constitutionality is all that is necessary for neutralization. If that occurs, the bill mandates that the state and its citizens “shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order.”

Senator Lori Klein, who drafted the bill, stated, “We have in Washington a particularly overreaching administration as well as regulations that are coming out of agencies that are not even mandated from Congress. The states have a right to stand up to these kinds of onerous regulations.”  The bill itself contains strong wording in regard to its purpose, “This act serves as a notice and demand to the government to cease and desist all activities outside of the scope of their constitutionally designated powers that diminishes the balance of powers as established.”


Oklahoma joins fight against NDAA detention

OKLAHOMA CITY (Feb. 3, 2012) – A fourth state has entered the fight against detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act.

On Monday, Oklahoma Rep. Charles Key (R-Oklahoma City) will officially file a resolution that would petition Congress and Pres. Obama to repeal sec. 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, and declare the detention provisions null and void in the Sooner State.

“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,” Key said. “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.”


Washington State: Marijuana Regulation Measure Certified For 2012 Ballot

Washington State legislators have approved a statewide initiative for possible November ballot that would allow the legalization of small amounts of marijuana by adults.

New Approach Washington raised over 350,000 signatures to qualify the initiative for this year’s ballot in November. Backers include two former US Attorneys from the Bush and Clinton administrations and Seattle FBI agent-in-charge. This initiative must go to the Legislature where they must either pass the measure as written, allow it to go on the ballot after either ignoring it or rejecting it, or finally put it on the ballot with a legislative alternative.

The main goals as stated in Initiative 502 would require the state to license and regulate marijuana the same as hard liquor and:
… stop treating adult marijuana use as a crime and try a new approach that:
(1) Allows law enforcement resources to be focused on violent and property crimes;
(2) Generates new state and local tax revenue for education, health care, research, and substance abuse prevention; and
(3) Takes marijuana out of the hands of illegal drug organizations and brings it under a tightly regulated, state-licensed system similar to that for controlling hard alcohol.

This measure authorizes the state liquor control board to regulate and tax marijuana for persons twenty-one years of age and older, and add a new threshold for driving under the influence of marijuana.

This is a step in the right direction taken by the citizens of Washington State to decide for themselves what should or should not be a legal activity in their state. If passed this November it would put Washington State in conflict with federal laws where it is still illegal to use, buy and sell marijuana.


NDAA Nullification, Health Freedom and Upcoming Events

Add to iTunes

We’ve got about 3 hours of important info to pack into 60 minutes, or so! The biggie? The new NDAA nullification movement is moving forward. States, counties and towns are all starting to get on board. And one of the leaders in that effort is Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, who joins us to talk about his bill to require Virginia non-compliance with the new federal kidnapping “law.”

We’ve also got a ton of big event announcements. We sent a few of those out in our latest newsletter on Monday – and a few more to share here in this episode.

Plus good friend of the Center, Robert Scott Bell joins us as a special co-host this week. He welcomes as guest, Dr. Nick Gonzalez. They discuss the FDA vs your freedom, the nature of government, history of tyrannies and more. Health freedom and political freedom intersect with RSB!

For far too long, we the people have accepted partisan hacks as people worthy of votes – and organizations worthy of support. We’re pretty sick of it.


Heritage Gets it Wrong: Nullification is NOT Unconstitutional

cross-posted from the North Carolina Tenth Amendment Center

I beg to differ with Heritage Foundation’s David Azerrad’s article New Year’s Resolutions for Conservatives in The Foundry where he states that … “Nullification is blatantly unconstitutional. As James Madison pointed out in 1798, 1800 and again during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, individual states do not have the power to unilaterally declare federal legislation unconstitutional.”

As Thomas E. Woods, Jr. pointed out in his book Nullification and his previous rebuttal Nullification: Answering the Objections article: “If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in 1798 on government powers, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.”

The Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were drafted by James Madison and agreed to by the legislature of Virginia, James Madison referred to it as the “Duty” of the state to interpose between and federal government and the citizens of the state.

“and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”- James Madison, Virginia Resolutions, 1798


Will Counties and Towns Nullify the NDAA?

Fremont, El Paso Counties in Colorado May Be Followed By Many More

Some people argue that principles of state sovereignty would be a pointless strategy in their state.  They argue that their statehouse is even more corrupt than the Feds and in some cases, they may have a point.

Fortunately there is much that can be done at the county level.  Sources are telling Tenth Amendment Center that there are a high number of counties in Colorado alone that are ready to turn back the NDAA.

What do you do when the Feds decide that they’re allowed to kidnap people?  Do you wait until you’ve made the ‘correct’ voting choices or do you do what Jefferson would have high-fived you for and tell the DC bureaucrats who seek to dominate we, the people, “NO!”.  “No, you may not enter this county and kidnap citizens of this county.”


Vermont vs the Feds: Blocking a State from Environmental Decisions

Recently a federal judge blocked Vermont from decommissioning the leaky Yankee nuclear reactor that is almost identical to Fukushima Reactor #1 (75% of US reactors are leaking radioactive material), using the excuse that only the corrupt federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) can decommission a reactor.


Under the Tenth Amendment States’ Rights, states can do anything they want as long as it is not a power that is:

•  delegated to the federal government in the Constitution
•  prohibited to the states by the Constitution
•  prohibited to the state by its own constitution

The Constitution lacks provisions forcing a state to risk its citizens’ lives in order to boost nuclear industry profits.

Constitutional Remedies

Vermont has a law that gives the state veto power over a reactor when its license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is expired.  The judge in the Yankee case unconstitutionally invalidated the state law, and the NRC granted the Yankee plant a 20-year extension.  An appeal of the ruling would require a lot of time and effort.

A quick and simple option for Vermont would be to collect evidence proving leakage that endangers health or property in order to declare a State of Emergency that would put control over Yankee operations in the hands of the state.  It is unlikely that Vermont could decommission the reactor, but they could close it down until the necessary repairs were completed.  If the repairs were cost prohibitive, the effect would be to shut it down.

Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin’s War on Climate

Because the Yankee nuclear plant provides 70% of Vermont’s energy, a replacement energy source is required if Yankee were to close.  Governor Shumlin favors green renewable energy that is insufficient, unreliable and very costly.  Shumlin’s energy plan is centered on the pipe dream of renewables providing 90% of electricity needs by 2050.  Coal is discounted in his fairy tale paradigm.


NDAA Nullification: Tennessee Bills Propose Kidnapping Charges for Federal Agents

State and local resistance to the detention provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act continues to grow, rapidly emerging as a nationwide movement.

The Tennessee legislature will consider HB1629 and SB2669 in the 2012 session. The legislation would effectively nullify the detention provisions in the NDAA and would also require federal agents making an arrest in the Volunteer State for any reason to first obtain written permission from the county sheriff.

This bill declares that any federal law purporting to require local or state law enforcement agencies to act at the direction of the federal government or the United States military is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state. This bill further declares that any federal law purporting to give federal agents or employees, including any members of the United States military, the authority of any state or local law enforcement agency of this state, without the express permission of this state, is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and is declared to be invalid in this state.

The act takes aim at indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA. Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey called language in the NDAA vague and overbroad, pointing out that Americans should never simply trust in the good intentions and moral clarity of the president or federal judges to protect their rights.

“It falls on the states to step in and protect their citizens,” he said. “I can’t imagine a more clear-cut application of state and local interposition as a check on federal power. What could be a more palpable, deliberate and dangerous unconstitutional act than the federal government indefinitely detaining an American citizen without due process?”