Indiana Bill Would Make the Implementation of “Obamacare” a Felony

Indiana State Senator Phil Boots has introduced a bill that would nullify implementation of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the state.

SB 0230 would amend the Indiana Code concerning state and local administration. The text of the bill simply states:

“Provides that any federal act, order, law, rule, regulation, or statute found by the general assembly to be inconsistent with the power granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is void in Indiana. Provides that a resident of Indiana has a cause of action to enjoin the enforcement or implementation or the attempted enforcement or implementation of a federal act, order, law, rule, regulation, or statute declared void by the general assembly. Provides that a plaintiff who prevails in such an action is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”

The general assembly finds the following:

(1) The people of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes as set forth in the Constitution of the United States and for nothing more.


New York Senate Bill Would Nullify Federal Laws on Marijuana

New York State Senator Velmanette Montgomery has introduced a bill (S01682) legalizing medical marijuana in the state.

The bill has been co-sponsored by Senators Liz Krueger and John L. Sampson and it states:

The legislature finds that thousands of New Yorkers have serious medical conditions that can be improved by medically-approved use of  marihuana.  The law should not stand between them  and  life  and health-sustaining treatment under a practitioner’s supervision.  Many controlled substances that  are  legal for  medical  use (such as morphine and steroids) are otherwise illegal. This legislation follows  the  well-established  public  policy  that  a controlled substance can have a legitimate medical use.

The bill has been assigned to committee.

If passed, New York will join 18 other states who have nullified unconstitutional federal laws on marijuana. 


Wyoming Legislators Take on the NDAA

Wyoming state representative Kendell Kroeker, along with reps Hunt and Miller, and Senator Case, are introducing a bill that declares the indefinite detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA to be unconstitutional, prohibiting enforcement of the federal act.

H.B. 0114 – The Liberty Preservation Act – is currently up for consideration in the Wyoming legislature, and could be heard later this week. It declares the above sections of the NDAA to be “inimical to the liberty, security and well being of the people of Wyoming” and further states that they were “adopted by the United States congress in violation of the limits of federal power in the United States Constitution.”

The bill not only cites the various constitutional violations of the NDAA, but makes it a criminal misdemeanor for state employees and public officers to participate in trying to implement the aforementioned provisions. This would be a bold step for Wyoming. If passed, they could possibly be the first state to make participation with the feds in kidnapping people under the NDAA a criminal act.

Representative Kroeker affirms that it comes down to the basics of his role as a legislator.

“The oath that I take is pretty simple; to uphold the United States Constitution, and the Wyoming Constitution. The provisions of the NDAA are a direct violation, and we have an obligation to push back against it.”

Several other states, including Washington and Texas, have similar legislation coming up this session. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect at least 12 states doing the same in 2013.


Indiana SB-127 Would Limit Federal Arrest Power

The power to arrest for federal officials in Indiana may face limits this year should State Senator Dennis Kruse’s legislation SB-127, the Indiana Sherrifs First Act, becomes law. That would mean as Sec. 1(a) states,

“a federal employee who is not designated by state law to act as a state law enforcement officer may not make an arrest, a search, or a seizure in Indiana unless, before making the arrest, search, or seizure, thefederal employee obtains the written permission of the sheriff or the designee of the sheriff who has jurisdiction in the county in which the arrest, search, or seizure will occur.”

There are exceptions in Sec. 1(b) which you can read here. The feds retain arresting power in federal enclaves, when a crime is imminent or witnessed and requires immediate action, the subject of arrest is employed by the sheriff, or if a state law designates the federal employee as a state law enforcer.

On Monday, January 7 the bill was read then introduced to the Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure. If it passes, the law would take effect July 1. One sheriff hopes to see such a difference made.

“This is the type of positive state legislation that will help reign in federal usurpations of our Constitution,” said Sheriff of Elkhart County, Brad Rogers. If you don’t remember the name, this is the sheriff who took on the FDA when they threatened dairy farmers in his jurisdiction. Rogers continues, “However, we the people still have an obligation to elect sheriffs who will uphold their oath of office. Otherwise, a law such as this won’t go far in protecting us from what it is designed to do.”


Wyoming to Preserve the Second Amendment?

In response to current threats from the Federal Government on banning firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition, States are beginning to take action to hold the Federal Government to its constitutional limits under the 2nd Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Wyoming Rep. Kendell Kroeker has sponsored and introduced HB0104. the Firearms Protection Act. Representatives Baker, Burkhart, Jaggi, Miller, Piiparinen, Reeder and Winters and Senators Dockstader and Hicks have co-sponsered this bill.

Wyoming’s Firearms Protection Act, is “an act relating to firearms; providing that any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming; providing a penalty; and providing for an effective date.” This act nullifies all federal laws made after Jan. 1, 2013.

“We need the second amendment because it is the protection for all of our other rights. Without it, those rights have no protection,” Kroeker said.


Supreme Court Justices are Behaving Badly

Contrary to the notion that Supreme Court Justices are appointed for Life, the truth is that the Constitution indicates that they shall hold office during times of good behavior.

The question that needs to be asked is what constitutes bad behavior and who determines if the Justices on the Supreme Court are doing their job satisfactorily?

Justices that demonstrate their competency are ones making judgments that are aligned with the Constitution. When Justices deviate from the Constitution and make decisions that expand the power of the Congress and the President they are reveal their bad behavior.


NDAA Nullification: Status of Bills Around the Country

Now that State legislative sessions for 2013 are starting to get underway, it’s a good time for a quick overview of who’s looking at bills to nullify NDAA kidnapping powers (the ones called “indefinite detention”).  In 2012, Virginia became the first state to pass a law along these lines.  And, while Arizona and Michigan were very close, they didn’t get to the finish line.  We expect those states – and many more – to consider bills in 2013.

Keep up to date with NDAA Nullification legislation around the country with the Tenth Amendment Center legislative tracking page HERE:

Here’s what’s happening so far:

In Texas, State Representative Lyle Larson introduced House Bill 149 (HB149), the Texas Liberty Preservation Act. This might be the strongest anti-NDAA bill introduced yet.  It states, in part:

Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81) violate portions of federal law, the United States Constitution, and the Texas Constitution and, as such, are invalid and illegal in this state.

It also, like Virginia’s law, requires full noncompliance with the federal act:

It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81). Any act to enforce or attempt to enforce those laws is in violation of this subchapter.

But, the Texas legislation takes it a step further, codifying into State law criminal penalties for violation of the act by even federal agents:


Nullify Obamacare Rally Draws Hundreds in South Carolina

COLUMBIA, S.C. (Jan. 9, 2012) – Hundreds of people rallied at the South Carolina state capitol building yesterday, calling on state lawmakers to nullify the Patient Protection and protestAffordable Care Act.

South Carolina Republican Liberty Caucus secretary Daniel Encarnacion estimated 300 to 400 showed up to demand the state do everything within its power to stop implementation of Obamacare in South Carolina. Others put the crowd at over 500 people.

Encarnacion said the huge turnout left an impression on lawmakers and put the Obamacare nullification bill, H3101, on the front burner.

“The GOP leadership was left scrambling,” he said. “The biggest sign of our success is the GOP leadership also had one of their lemmings introduce a bill to nullify Obamacare. It is a diversion bill, however. It nullifies it, but doesn’t have the criminal penalties. It has no enforcement mechanism. But it demonstrates what several hundred people showing up and knocking on legislators’ doors can do. Now we just have to keep up the pressure.”

In response, South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Chad Connelly released a statement in support of PPACA nullification.

“South Carolina cannot afford to sit idly by while Obamacare is implemented in our state. Numerous bills have already been filed in our state legislature to prevent the implementation of the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” he said. “The SCGOP fully supports our state legislators as they defend states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment.”

One South Carolina mother brought four of her five children to the rally. She said health care was a huge issue for her because one of her daughters suffers from a chronic disease. She fears the implementation of the health care act will actually make it harder to obtain good treatment for her child because of its impact on the entire health care system.


Will Missouri Say NO to the Drone Surveillance State?

The escalation of the surveillance state is happening with the induction of drones in US airspace. Petitioning the government for our privacy is not working. In response, State Representative Guernsey pre-filed a bill in December to nullify drone surveillance in the state of Missouri. Representative Guernsey’s bill, HB 46 Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act is the line in the sand.

This bill requires a warrant for any drone surveillance use in monitoring people for alleged criminal conduct. “No person, entity, or state agency shall use a drone or other unmanned aircraft to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant.” Law enforcement is defined as, “”Law enforcement agency”, any state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency in the state. The term law enforcement agency shall not include the Missouri department of corrections, or any state, county, or municipal fire department.”

It also proposes to stop even general surveillance by the use of a drone. “No person, entity, or state agency shall use a drone or other unmanned aircraft to conduct surveillance of any individual, property owned by an individual, farm, or agricultural industry without the consent of that individual, property owner, farm or agricultural industry.”

The bill does not mention storage of surveillance, but is a step in the right direction, according to supporters. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) are considered part of an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) which includes a ground station, operator, and equipment to store collected surveillance.

Even though the legislation only includes state and local law enforcement agencies in its prohibition of drone use, Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin says the bill still has ramifications at the federal level because of Washington’s strong advocacy of drone use.


The Obama Administration’s Illegal Health Care Taxes: an Update

by Michael Cannon, CATO Institute

There have been several developments with respect to the Obama administration’s attempt to impose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s employer-mandate penalties and individual-mandate penalties where it has no authority to do so.

My coauthor Jonathan Adler and I have posted an updated and final draft of our forthcoming Health Matrix article, “Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand Tax Credits Under the PPACA,” to the Social Sciences Research Network web site. This draft contains additional evidence that Congress did indeed intend to restrict the Act’s tax credits, cost-sharing subsidies, employer mandate penalties, and (to a certain extent) individual mandate penalties to states that establish their own health insurance Exchanges. It also shows how recent arguments advanced by defenders of the rule cannot be reconciled with the statute or the legislative history. If you’re interested in this issue, you’ll want to read this draft, even if you’ve already read previous versions.

In the Winter issue of Regulation magazine, University of Missouri law professor Thomas Lambert shows how this feature of the Act, combined with the Supreme Court’s ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius and other features, make the law so dangerously unstable that repeal remains a distinct possibility. I plan to blog more about this article soon.

A private employer has petitioned a federal court in Oklahoma to be added as a plaintiff in that state’s lawsuit against the IRS rule.