Judge Napolitano on White House Claim that it has the Power to Kill Americans with Drones

There is new reaction to the White House after the Justice Department released a memo saying the government can kill United States citizens overseas if it believes they are terror suspects and even if they’re not involved in an active plot against the U.S.

A bipartisan group of senators is calling on President Obama to release all memos related to this policy. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “[President Obama] takes his responsibility in conducting the war against Al Qaeda as authorized by Congress in a way that is fully consistent with our Constitution and all the applicable laws.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano reacted on America Live today, saying, “This one is carrying things to an extreme that most Americans won’t recognize.”

He explained that a “fair interpretation” of this 16-page DOJ document and Jay Carney’s interpretation of the memo is that the president or a “high ranking U.S. government official” can kill anyone no matter what the laws say.

Details

Nebraska – LB 602 to nullify Fed’s overreach on firearms

Senator Dave Bloomfield along with co-sponsors [Hansen;  Kintner;  Larson;  Murante;   Schilz;  Watermeier] introduced LB602 on January 23. 2013.  LB 602 takes the same tactical approach as model 2nd Amendment Preservation legislation available through The Tenth Amendment Center.   The Bill is currently in the Judiciary Committee.

Some 15 States have now introduced legislation under the ‘firearm’s freedom act‘ banner, but this one takes a very strategic Constitutional stance.

Exhibit A:

Sec. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that the authority for the Nebraska Firearms Freedom Act is the following: (1) The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government…”

LB602 continues by citing:

“The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees to the people rights not granted in the Constitution…”

“The regulation of intrastate commerce which is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments…”

“The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution which reserves to the people the right to keep and bear
arms…..”

“Article I, section 1, of the Constitution of Nebraska which clearly secures to Nebraska citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual….”

“The authority of the Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Nebraska from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Nebraska from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce does not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Nebraska.”

Details

Anti-Drone Bills Pass Virginia House, Montana Senate

Bills that would limit the use of domestic drones in Virginia and Montana took an important step forward this week.

On Tuesday, the Montana Senate overwhelmingly passed anti-drone legislation.

Sen. Robyn Driscoll (D-Billings) introduced SB 150 last month. The bill would prohibit any state or local agency in Montana from owning an “unmanned aerial vehicle containing an antipersonnel device.” It would also make any evidence gathered by a drone inadmissible in a criminal proceeding. The legislation contains some teeth, opening the door for any victim of a drone to seek punitive and compensatory damages.

SB 150 passed the Senate by a 32-17 margin.

The bill will now move on for consideration in the House. It has not been assign to a committee at this time.

“Americans are tired of having their privacy violated by government functionaries, and its good to see states stepping in to say no. Here we have bills in two states, one sponsored by a Democrat, the other by a Republican, both garnering broad bipartisan support,” Maharrey said. “This is not a partisan issue. This is an American issue. We value our liberties and our right to just be left alone. I don’t think anybody is comfortable with the idea of drones hovering over our homes, especially when we see the potential for remote controlled execution. We already have a president claiming the authority to off Americans on a whim with the click of a button. Now is the time to nip this drone thing in the bud.”

On Monday, the Virginia House overwhelmingly passed HB2012, it’s own anti-drone bill. It would place a two-year moratorium on the use of unmanned aircraft by any state or local law enforcement agency in the Old Dominion State. The bill, sponsored by Delegate Benjamin Cline (R-Amherst), passed 83-16.

As introduced, the legislation only limited the use of drones until 2014. The version passed would prohibit their use, with a few exceptions, until July 2015.

Details

NDAA Nullification Needs Your Help in South Carolina

On Tuesday afternoon, February 5th, the South Carolina senate Judiciary Committee declined to send to the full senate a bill, S.92, to nullify a portion of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act authorizing the president to use the military to capture and indefinitely detain any citizen he deemed to be a terrorist.  The bill was originally sponsored by Senator Tom Davis, of Beaufort County.

Half of the Republicans and all of the Democrats on the committee voted to “hold the bill over.” While not the same as a NO vote, killing the bill, it can effectively act as vote against the bill – preventing it from receiving a full floor vote in the Senate.

A bill held over can still come up for consideration, whereas a NO vote ends any consideration on the bill. That means S.92 will come up for another vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, likely within the next week.

If you support due process and oppose the power to “indefinitely detain” in South Carolina, you can help get this bill moving forward. Please follow the action steps below right now.

ACTION ITEMS

Details

Legalization of Medical Marijuana Proposed in Oklahoma

A bill to legalize cannabis for legitimate medical purposes was introduced by Oklahoma State Senator Constance N. Johnson it would reverse state law and stop state prosecutions for possession by those with a medical prescription.

SB 902 would amend the Oklahoma Code concerning cannabis. The text of the bill simply states that:

“The State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision shall develop and adopt rules permitting the prescription of medical cannabis by physicians licensed in the State of Oklahoma pursuant to the provisions of Section 480 et seq. of this title.The Board shall establish fees for the licensing, production, distribution, and consumption of medical cannabis and develop policies for the issuance of licenses to prescribers and consumers of medical cannabis.”

This bill, if passed, would effectively nullify federal marijuana laws through non-compliance with the state no longer following federal marijuana laws. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled against medical marijuana in the states in the case Gonzalez vs Raich. The attorneys general of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, three strongly anti-drug states from the usually conservative South, filed a brief supporting Raich on the grounds of states’ rights. Already, 18 states have marijuana laws on the books – 2 of which are full legalization and not just for medical purposes – leading to an effective nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and regulations on that plant.

Details

Utah State Rep Introduces State Supremacy Firearms Act

originally published at The New American Magazine

Think Americans don’t care about the right to keep and bear arms? Think again.

In Salt Lake City, Utah, on January 19, nearly 3,000 liberty-minded Americans disregarded temperatures in the single digits to express their opposition to impending federal gun control programs and their support for a state bill that will stop all such efforts at the borders of the Beehive State.

The legislation in question, the State Supremacy Firearms Act, is the work of first-time state representative Brian Greene (R-Pleasant Grove).

“The Utah Legislature knows what is best with respect to gun safety in our state,” Greene told the crowd gathered on the steps of the State Capitol.

Greene also shared with the rally a letter from the Utah Sheriffs’ Association to President Obama that informs the president that “no federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment 2 — has given them.”

The last line of the letter from the sheriffs brought the seriousness of the message home.

“And we are prepared,” the sheriffs write, “to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”

As The New American has reported, similar statements in defense of the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms are being issued by sheriffs all around the country.

In Utah, Representative Greene believes that sheriffs will arrest and detain any federal agent attempting to enforce any executive order or act of Congress that infringes on the right to purchase or possess firearms and ammunition.

Details

NC Rep. Stam Is Wrong About Nullification

The men and women at all levels of government are not perfect ,they have shown repeatedly that they can and will violate our rights and freedoms. Not all of those violations are intentional, many are through ignorance and when I say ignorance, I only mean to imply they just do not understand our Constitution or its foundations.

Whether their unconstitutional actions are intentional or unintentional, are we bound to follow them? Must we obey or submit to “laws” that Failclearly violate our rights because some representative, bureaucrat or Supreme Court judge says so? These people are not infallible; history has shown us they can be wrong and have been proven to be on numerous occasions.

So, if you follow these “laws” and tell others that they must also obey, rules and regulations that clearly violate people’s rights and freedoms, that violate the rule of law and the Constitution what does that say about you.

A question that must be answered and soon by those that have been elected to our State Legislature, do they not only accept ever-expanding federal tyranny flowing out of Washington, DC but do they also help implement it?

Details