This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for order at tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie
In a report by Joe Wolverton in the New American magazine, we learn that a Virginia state lawmaker is introducing a bill to strictly limit drone surveillance in his state.
In the report, Delegate Todd Gilbert stated,
“I believe, as do many Virginians across the political spectrum, that the use of drones by police and other government agencies should be strictly controlled by state laws that protect the privacy and civil rights of all Virginia residents. I will be introducing legislation in the 2013 General Assembly Session to i) prohibit the use of drones by law enforcement unless a warrant has been issued; ii) require that policies and procedures for the use of drones be adopted by legislative bodies in open meetings; iii) provide for public monitoring and accountability; and iv) mandate that pictures of individuals acquired by drones be destroyed unless they are part of an authorized investigation.”
Learn nore about this legislation – and the escalating deployment of drones for unconstitutional monitoring – when Joe Wolverton joins us on Tenther Radio. You can tune in this Wednesday night at 9pm Eastern and 6PM Pacific at radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com
Mike Maharrey reports in Michigan that a strong grassroots coalition around the state is expanding the push for nullification of the kidnapping provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act.
On June 14, Michigan Rep. Tom McMillin filed HB5768, which would forbid state compliance with the detention provisions in sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA.
The legislation would prohibit any state agent, state employee or member of the Michigan National Guard from assisting “an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to 50 USC 1541, as provided by the federal national defense authorization act… if such aid would place that state agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the Michigan national guard in violation of the United States constitution, the state constitution of 1963, or any law of this state.”
Work to nullify NDAA detention provisions also continues at the local level in the Great Lakes State. On July 18, Oakland County Commissioner Jim Runestad introduced an NDAA Liberty Preservation Resolution for consideration, and on July 26, Allegan County Commissioner Bill Sage will introduce an identical resolution to that county commission.
“Citizens cannot stand by and permit this type of travesty against the U.S. Constitution that all local, state, and federal officials took an oath to protect,” Sage said.
Activists also report support for similar local efforts in Clinton, Eaton, Grand Traverse and Sheboygan counties, along with Grand Traverse City and Bloomfield Township.
In Oregon, Tim Reeves reports on two major nullification efforts seems to have flown under the radar. A ballot initiative that has qualified for the November elections is a direct defiance to Washington DC on not just one, but two distinct issues. Measure 80, the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, first legalizes marijuana for adults 21 and over. It creates a tax revenue regime similar to that of state liquor tax programs. It also legalizes the farming of industrial hemp, which can be used for food products, clothing, fuel, paper and more.
According to Reeves, the initiative is a real middle finger to the feds, loaded with one liner quotes such as:
“Whereas the people hold that cannabis prohibition is a sumptuary law of a nature repugnant to our constitution’s framers…” And
Prohibition “Violates the state’s right to regulate and tax commerce within the state, as reserved to states under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution”
Find more information on Measure 80 and support the effort at octa2012.org
And finally, a new article by Rob Natelson tells us that the Obamacare Decision Suggests a Republican-backed U.S. Malpractice Bill is Unconstitutional
He writes, ,”Little-noticed amid the commentary on the Supreme Court’s health care decision is the decision’s blow to congressional efforts to federalize medical malpractice law—a potential element of the Republican plan to “replace Obamacare.”
Medical malpractice cases, like most areas of civil justice, traditionally are judged by state courts under state law rather than by the national government.
Yet the current U.S. House of Representatives—led by some who otherwise assail federal overreaching—have twice passed H.R. 5, a bill that would largely transfer control over medical malpractice lawsuits to the federal government. Fortunately, the measure has not passed the Senate. It is, however, being touted as part of the GOP plan to “replace” Obamacare.
Under Title 1 of H.R. 5 (the so-called HEALTH ACT), Congress would assume expansive authority over state court procedures. The bill requires state judges and juries to adopt federal standards of proof, federal damage rules, federally-mandated standards of guilt, federal statutes of limitations, and a federal schedule for attorneys’ fees that overrides agreements between attorney and client. H.R. 5 also dictates that certain legal information be withheld from juries. A portion of the bill with the Orwellian title of “State Flexibility and Protection of States’ Rights” provides that the measure overrides state law, with only minimal concessions.
Advocates of H.R. 5 claim the Constitution gives Congress authority to adopt the measure under the Necessary and Proper and Commerce Clause.
But as the Supreme Court has emphasized repeatedly, there are limits to Congress’s authority. Chief Justice Roberts’ health care opinion strongly suggests that the Necessary and Proper Clause is simply not broad enough to include the kind of control over state courts that H.R. 5 would impose.
In his opinion for the Court, Roberts upheld as a tax the individual insurance mandate. But he also agreed with a majority of the court that the mandate could not be justified under the Commerce Power. One of his key observations was that (in accordance with the Founders’ understanding) the Necessary and Proper Clause does not grant power by itself, but merely clarifies how the Constitution should be read. Roberts further explained that the Necessary and Proper Clause does not permit Congress to exercise of any “‘great substantive and independent power[s]’ beyond those specifically enumerated. . . .”
According to Natelson, those Republicans advocating this plan should follow the constitution and withdraw their proposal. We agree.