New Hampshire House Committee Votes to Nullify Federal Marijuana Laws, 14-1

The federal prohibition on marijuana doesn’t seem to serve as much of a deterrent to the people of those states who want it legalized within their borders.

Congress and the president claim the constitutional authority to prohibit weed. The Supreme Court concurs. But sharing an opinion on something doesn’t necessarily make it a fact. You can claim you are a unicorn, but you’re not. Clearly, the Constitution delegates no power of marijuana regulation to the feds. And the so-called war on drugs rests on the same legal authority as all of the other modern-day undeclared wars.


So, more and more states continue to do exactly what they should do when the federal government tries exercise power it does not legitimately possess.

Ignore it.

Eighteen states have done just that, legalizing medical marijuana. That wave continues to build, with even more state legislatures considering medicinal marijuana legislation in the 2013 session, and more likely to follow suit.

Introduced in February by State Rep. Donna Schlachman (D-Exeter), House Bill 573 would allow seriously ill patients to use medical marijuana if their doctors recommend it. Patients would be able to grow up to three mature marijuana plants in their homes or obtain marijuana through one of five non-profit, state-licensed alternative treatment centers.


Clapper v Amnesty: Courts and Congress v Our Constitution

by Shahid Buttar, Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Last Tuesday’s decision by the Supreme Court in Clapper vs Amnesty Int’l reflects judicial formalism at its worst. The decision abandons fundamental rights and the courts’ constitutional mandate, while placing government agencies above the law, so long as they commit their abuses in secret.

Clapper is a constitutional travesty of the highest order, reflecting the erosion of privacy, judicial independence, and constitutional government all at once. By allowing executive secrecy to insulate violations from review, five Justices of the Supreme Court have effectively killed what shreds once remained of the Fourth Amendment.

Every American should be gravely concerned, and anyone who still considers America “the land of the free” should carefully reconsider their assumptions. Several elements of the decision are disturbing, especially when viewed in a broader context beyond the case itself.

Most obviously disappointing is the result of the ruling, not only for the plaintiffs, but also anyone who uses the phone system or Internet.

A scandal in plain sight

The Clapper saga started with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was first passed in the 1970s to restrict domestic spying by government agencies. It was prompted by decades of abuses by the FBI, CIA, and other agencies that Congress investigated and found conducting “a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at suppressing the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association,” including a documented government campaign to “neutralize” Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights leaders.


Massachusetts Bill to Nullify NDAA Reminiscent of the State’s Personal Liberty Act of 1855

There is a saying that history repeats itself.

H.1428 “Commonwealth of Massachusetts Liberty Preservation Act” is a prime example of that adage. This bill, introduced by Representative John D. Keenan, is reminiscent of the Massachusetts Personal Liberty Act of 1855, which protected the right of runaway slaves to a writ of habeas corpus and from being forcibly removed from the state.

In 1855, Massachusetts laid out a clear case why the Federal Fugitive Slave laws were unconstitutional and those same reasons apply to the new threat to our liberties posed by the federal government. Justified as a security measure, the federal government under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows the military, under orders of the President, to detain forcibly anyone in the United States without charges, lawyer, trial or a writ of habeas corpus indefinitely.

The text of H.1428 lists multiple provisions in the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions that limit the federal government from exercising powers it does not have. Here is a list, but you can go to the bill itself to see how each applies:


The Founders on the Dangers of a Standing Army

by Jacob Hornberger, Future of Freedom Foundation

Consider why our American ancestors opposed a standing army for our nation:

James Madison: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

Patrick Henry: “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”

Henry St. George Tucker in Blackstone’s 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England: “Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

Commonwealth of Virginia in 1788: “… that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”


Florida Medical Marijuana Bill SB1250 Gaining Support

Medical Marijuana Badge by *EmmaL27

Marijuana, pot, weed, Mary Jane, chronic, or Dagga – whatever you want to call it it has been contested in American culture for decades now.

Is it good or bad?

Recently, citizens in numerous states have come to the conclusion that legalizing marijuana for medical use is right for them, despite federal prohibitions on medicinal cannabis.

In Florida, State Senator Jeff Clemens has introduced SB1250 – alternatively called the Cathy Jordan Medical Cannabis Act.

Jordan’s home was raided because she was using medical marijuana to help with her Lou Gehrig’s Disease.

This bill would allow any qualifying patient to hold an identification card allowing the patient (or their caregiver) to “possess and use paraphernalia for a specified purpose.” All marijuana would need to be obtained from a dispensary or an official cannibis farm. Florda State Representative, Katie Edwards, has also introduced a companion House bill, HB1139.

Jodi James, the executive director of the Florida Cannabis Action Network (FLCAN) told the Tampa Bay Times, “We know the public is not opposed to making cannabis available. The polls are all going in that direction.”


Arizona Amendment – A State’s Rights ‘Blooming Ocotillo’ enema for ‘da feds’

‘First proposed in 1966 [2006] and named after Columbia University [The United States Constitution] sociologistfs [ liberty lovers ]Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven [Michael Boldin and Mike Maharrey], the cityhankescavecreekCloward-Piven Strategy[Tenth Amendment Strategy] seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism [a cadre of federal usurpers] by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands [state’s rights legislation], thus pushing society [the federal government] into crisis and economic collapse [forcing them to stand down].’

Somebody once said – “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”, and to that end Chester Crandell and Judy Burges – Senator’s, Arizona Assembly along with co-sponsors Al Melvin and Brenda Barton – have ratcheted up the ante by proposing SCR 1016.  What is SCR 1016 ?


This Bill passed the Senate [16Y-12N] on March 4, 2013 and has been sent to the House for consideration.

This proposed Amendment to the Arizona Constitution recognizes that –

” The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land TO WHICH ALL GOVERNMENT, STATE AND FEDERAL, IS SUBJECT.”

The bold type is their Constitution’s Article 2, Section 3 as it exist today; the rest is the part that’s being added.  ‘To which all government…” should be of significant interest if one believe’s ‘the law of the land‘ should apply to all equally.