Tenther News: 06-11-12, via news.tenthamendmentcenter.com
This week’s big news comes from Alabama, where we learn from Alex Newman, writing in the New American Magazine that Alabama has become the first state in the country to have passed a bill nullifying Agenda 21.
Senate Bill 477 – known unofficially among some supporters as the “Due Process for Property Rights” Act, was approved unanimously by both the state House and Senate. After hesitating for a few days, late last month Republican Governor Robert Bentley finally signed into law the wildly popular measure — but only after heavy pressure from activists forced his hand.
“The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21,’
On the heel of Connecticut becoming the 17th state to defy the federal government with a new medical marijuana law, the New Hampshire Senate concurred with the state House in passing Senate bill 409 – according to the Concord Monitor.
The bill now goes to Democratic Gov. John Lynch, who has promised to veto it over concerns raised by law enforcement officials.
A veto override is almost assured in the house, but the Senate is just 2 votes shy as of today. If New Hampshire activists can convince their state Senators to reject Lynch’s veto, New Hampshire would become the 18th state to nullify federal drug laws on marijuana. We’ll be following this story closely at tenthamendmentcenter.com.
On the indefinite detention front, a lot of things happening. First, we learn from People Against the NDAA that the federal Government is attempting to defy a Federal Judge’s injunction on NDAA.
On May 16 U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest issued a preliminary injunction banning enforcement of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act. The section allows indefinite detention of people designated by the government as terrorists or terror-linked.
The federal government responded by telling the judge it concluded that her ruling exempted only the named plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the provision.
According to a report by Bob Unruh in World Net Daily last Friday, Forrest shot back in a new Memorandum Opinion and Order that said because the possible injury to Americans includes the loss of their rights, her order was intended to protect everyone – and not just the named plaintiffs as the Obama administration was claiming.
She wrote – “The injunction in this action is intentionally expansive because ‘persons whose expression is constitutionally protected [and not party to the instant litigation] may well refrain from exercising their rights for fear of criminal sanctions by a statute susceptible of application to protected expression,’”
“The law has long provided that this type of finding has provided relief to both the parties pursuing the challenge, as well as third parties not before the court,” she lectured. “This court’s preliminary injunction was consistent with that precedent. Put more bluntly, the May 16 order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court – or by Congress.”
The Tenth Amendment Center, along with Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Downsize DC, and other organizations, recently filed an amicus brief in support of those suing the federal government in this case.
In light of these court actions – reports show that activists aren’t holding their breath waiting for Congress or a higher court to uphold this injunction.
Fulton County Pennsylvania just passed a resolution denouncing the NDAA’s indefinite detention provisions, stating that “the Commissioners of Fulton County Pennsylvania, condemn in no uncertain terms Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAAthe Commissioners of Fulton County Pennsylvania, condemn in no uncertain terms Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA”
Also, in Rhode Island, House Resolution 7916, sponsored by Representative Dan Gordon, just passed out of the House judiciary committee late last week. The legislation is known as the “resolution to preserve habeas corpus and civil liberties of the citizens of Rhode Island”
Before going to the committee hearing, Gordon said “I just checked our committee calendar and the NDAA resolution has been scheduled for a second hearing…We’re virtually assured passage out of committee to the house floor and then passage on the house floor.”
If passed by the House, it will then need to go on to the State senate for concurrence. Inside sources tell us that support is solid there, but not as strong as in the House – and people living in Rhode Island are strongly encouraged to contact their state representatives and senators immediately – urging them to support H7916.
Passage there would make Rhode Island the 6th state already to have passed a resolution or law rejecting the so-called indefinite detention powers of the 2012 NDAA.
And rounding up our coverage this week – another step by local activists to nullify the NDAA. This time in Santa Cruz. According to the student run City on a Hill Press,
The Romero Institute is proposing to make Santa Cruz, California a civil rights enforcement zone, in response to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Santa Cruz City Council members have already expressed their concern with sections 1021 and 1022 of the act and passed a non-binding resolution on April 10 detailing their disapproval.
But the Romero Institute wants to take a step forward from that point. They are pushing a proposal which would nullify sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, which allow the U.S. military to indefinitely detain — without trial — any person, including U.S. citizens suspected of being affiliated with terrorist organizations or activities.
Daniel Sheehan, who heads the Institute said the following – “Our citizens have these rights,” “Anyone who comes in and tries to infringe them is in violation of the law and you can therefore take all necessary action to prevent the violation of constitutional rights of our citizens.”
Sheehan said a precedent will be set for other counties and cities as Santa Cruz moves to protect constitutional rights.
He continued – “If we are adequately upset about this, so should they be,” Sheehan said. “We as citizens have the obligation to use any means necessary to protect constitutional rights.”
To track the status of this and other Tenther legislation around the country, visit our legislative tracking page at TenthAmendmentCenter.com