Alaska Becomes Second State to Pass Nullification of Indefinite Detention

JUNEAU, Alaska – Federal kidnapping in Alaska just got a lot harder.

Last Friday, Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell signed a sweeping nullification bill providing  broad protections against indefinite detention, violations of the Second Amendment and blocking implementation of a federal identification program in The Last Frontier.

HB69 prohibits “state and municipal agencies from using assets to implement or aid in the implementation of the requirements of certain federal statutes, regulations, rules, and orders that are applied to infringe on a person’s right to bear arms or right to due process or that implement or aid in the implementation of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005.”

“The people of Alaska got a three-for-one in this bill. This is the most sweeping nullification legislation ever signed into law. The Alaska legislature, along with Gov. Parnell, obviously take Madison’s assertion that states are ‘duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil’ seriously.” The new law will make violations of the Second Amendment and DC-sanctioned kidnapping nearly impossible in Alaska, and it throws yet another roadblock in the path of an unconstitutional national ID program. The people of Alaska should be proud of the courage shown by their representatives,” Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey said.

The federal government depends on state resources to enforce its laws. By pulling the rug out from under the feds, and denying state and local assistance to federal agents, Alaska effectively nullified indefinite detention, along with unconstitutional federal firearms regulations. (You can read an in-depth analysis of the Second Amendment protections offered by HB69 HERE.)

Alaska becomes the second state to refuse cooperation with federal kidnapping under the National Defense Authorization Act, following Virginia’s lead last year. And the new law takes it a step further, protecting the people of Alaska from indefinite detention under any other purported federal authority past or present, such as the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

A state or municipal agency may not use or authorize the use of an asset to implement or aid in the implementation of a requirement of an order of the President of the United States, a federal regulation, or a law enacted by the United States Congress that is applied to deny a person a right to due process, or a protection of due process, that would otherwise be available to the person under the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the Constitution of the United States.

Details

Local 2nd Amendment Protection Resolutions Spreading Like Wildfire in Alabama

During the recent legislative session, the Alabama Senate created quite a stir when it passed a Second Amendment Preservation act that would have nullified unconstitutional federal gun laws in the Heart of Dixie. This was a great first step, but the Alabama House lacked the resolve to get the bill passed, and hopes of blocking violations of the Second Amendment at the state level died for the year with the end of the legislative session.

But that doesn’t mean Alabama citizens have to just sit around and wait for next year. Government bodies at the local level can step into the fray to get things done.

Two Alabama cities and one county did just that. The cities of Russellville and Red Bay both fall within Franklin County, and all three local governments recently passed similar resolutions supporting the right to keep and bear arms, and encouraging gun manufactures to set up shop in their area.

The resolutions find their legal justification in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I: Section 26 of the Alabama State Constitution that states “every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

The resolutions have six clauses, all encouraging gun manufacturing within their jurisdiction, both to maintain the defense of the citizens and for economic prosperity for their local communities.

“The council and I wanted to expressly show support for the Second Amendment,” Red Bay Mayor Bobby Forsythe said.

Details

California Senate Committee Unanimously Passes NDAA Nullification Bill

SACRAMENTO, Cal. (June 25, 2013) – Today, the California State Senate Public Safety Committee gave a unanimous “Do-Pass” approval to a bill which starts the process of stopping “Indefinite Detention” under the NDAA and other so-called federal “laws.”  The bill, authored by Republican Assemblymember Tim Donnelly was previously passed by the State Assembly by a vote of 71-1.  It is is expected to get a vote in the Senate appropriations committee next, which is the final stop before a vote in the state senate.  If it passes both, it’ll go on to the Governor’s desk for a signature.

California residents are strongly encourage to contact their state senator immediately to request a YES vote on AB351. (contact info here)

If passed into law, AB351 would make it state policy to reject “indefinite detention” powers from the federal government.   It reads, in part:

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 any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California. [emphasis added]

This language of AB351 goes far beyond what has been considered in most other states, which focus solely on indefinite detention powers under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and nothing else.  Donnelly’s legislation broadens the scope by recognizing that indefinite detention should not be complied with no matter what federal law is used to justify it.  Donnelly confirmed this broad scope, “AB351 will prevent California from implementing indefinite detention for any reason.”

This would make a HUGE dent in any federal effort to detain without due process in California.  As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). Quite simply, the federal government is going to have an extremely difficult time – at best – carrying out indefinite detention in California without the assistance of California.

NEXT STEPS  

Details

The TAC: DOING Stuff for Seven Years

A rainy April day in downtown Lexington, Ky. changed the trajectory of my life.

It was 2009, and I stood with several hundred people at one of the early Tax-Day protests that ultimately sparked the “Tea Party” movement. I don’t really remember specifics, although I do recall some fiery speeches and some pretty clever signs.

But I do vividly remember looking out over that crowd and thinking, “Wow, this is all well and good, but I need to DO something. Standing in the rain holding a sign just isn’t going to get it.”

I went home that afternoon and I simply couldn’t escape this deepening sense that it was imperative that I get personally involved in the political system. I didn’t want my kids or grandkids to ask me one day, “Daddy, what did you do when America was in the middle of its collapse?” and find that the only answer I had was “I stood in a park and then I voted.”

That day put me on a path that ultimately led me to the Tenth Amendment Center. I started out as the state chapter coordinator in Kentucky and eventually moved on to take the role of national communications director.

I’m thrilled to say, I found a place that DOES something and an organization that affords me the opportunity to DO stuff.

Today marks the Tenth Amendment Center’s seventh anniversary and I am simply awed at how far the organization has come in the three years I’ve been part of it. When I first started working for the TAC, we were pushing a few Tenth Amendment resolutions and trying to convince newspaper reporters we weren’t a bunch of racists. Today, as the AP recently reported “about four-fifths of the states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver’s licenses.”

Details

Partisanship Plays a Larger Role in Support for “ObamaCare” than Opposition to It

by Michael Cannon, CATO Institute The latest Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll provides a fascinating look into how factors other than the content of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act affect people’s views of that law. Kaiser asked respondents their views of the PPACA, alternately describing it as “ObamaCare” and “the health reform law.” Here’s what happened:…

Details

Left-Wingers Attack; I Yawn

Apparently there’s been a series against me over at the Daily Kos by a left-liberal lawyer. I no longer pay attention to left-wing attacks. It’s the same arguments every time. They pretend I haven’t answered them. I have. They idiotically call me a “neo-Confederate” (have they really not seen the zombie video, or are they trying to caricature themselves?).

The most recent one is only slightly different. For some reason, central to his argument is his claim that Thomas Jefferson was an Antifederalist. He was not. Jefferson was a supporter of the Constitution, though he wanted term limits for the president, as well as a Bill of Rights. This is all explained in a basic text like David N. Mayer’s The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson.

I am then accused of “mendacity” (because I stand to gain a lot by lying about nullification!) because I do not note that nine states spoke out against the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which laid out the doctrine of state nullification. By my count, seven states issued statements against the Resolutions, and I have discussed them repeatedly, both in my book (which the author has not read, naturally) and online.

I am “mendacious” for leaving this out, even though I didn’t leave it out, but my critic isabsolutely not mendacious for himself leaving out the reason that six of those seven states opposed Virginia and Kentucky: they favored the Sedition Act, and the principle that journalists should be thrown in jail for criticizing the president. Oops!

Details

Answering to a Higher Law

We spend a great deal of time defending the principle of state nullification of unconstitutional acts here at the Tenth Amendment Center. The philosophical basis for state nullification rests on delegation of powers and the structure of the system created by the Constitution. But other forms of nullification exist, finding their legitimacy in even higher authorities.

At the insistence of southern delegations, especially South Carolina’s, the final version of the U.S. Constitution included a fugitive slave clause in Article IV Sec. 2

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Granville Sharp was not pleased.

Sharp represented James Somersett in a famous English case that led to the conclusion that slavery was unsupported by existing law in England. In his ruling, Lord Mansfield essentially argued slavery was incompatible with common law.

The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.

When Sharp learned of the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution, he fired off a letter to Benjamin Franklin saying he was “sincerely grieved.” He went on to declare the constitutional clause was “null and void…It would be even a crime to regard [it] as Law.”

Details

Action Alert: Nullify Federal Gun ‘Laws’ Locally in Utah

The Utah State house took a big step forward last session, passing a bill to nullify all federal gun control by a vote of 49-17.   While the Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB114) was a great start to reassert the role of the state in defending the right to keep and bear arms, the Senate played games behind the scenes and failed to vote on the bill before the legislative deadline.  What was most lacking – beyond political courage in the Senate – was strong grassroots organization behind the bill well in advance.  Last minute support was strong, but next time, Utah legislators need to be on notice for months in order to get this important legislation passed.  With your work and dedication, liberty will win.

In order to take this to the next level and get a victory, your action is needed right now.  Starting today, and all the way through the rest of the year, local governments around the state need to be pressed to take a similar action – passing legislation in support of the right to keep and bear arms locally.  And at the same time, calling on the state legislature to do the same.  When the state is blanketed with local communities willing to nullify violations of the 2nd Amendment, the state legislature will be on notice.  Do your job, or else.

It’s going to take work to ensure that this is how things play out.  Here’s what you can start doing right now.

1.  Contact your local legislators – County, City, Town – and urge them to introduce an ordinance in support of the Second Amendment.

local ordinance here: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/2nd-amendment-preservation-act/   

Details

Is Obamacare on Life Support?

Remember a couple of months ago when the Obama administration sent letters to four states promising to use federal agents to enforce Obamacare if the states failed to?  Well, it appears that smug arrogance may have been a bit premature.

Reuters reported last month that many of the Affordable Care Act’s supporters are getting concerned that the states are not doing enough to support the legislation and that, without their help, enough people may not sign up.  It turns out that there is good cause for these concerns because “most states have balked at the exchanges and the Medicaid expansion.”  The exchanges are the infrastructure on which Obamacare is built and the states’ refusal to create them has created complexity for the federal government’s efforts to implement it.

Talking about the federal government’s limited ability to advertise the program, one advocate said, “It’s going to require a very robust effort in the private sector.”  The expectation of this would appear to be an unwarranted exercise in optimism given the fact that the public “is highly skeptical…about the most complex social legislation since…the mid-1960s.”  A recent poll shows that only 37% of Americans think that Obamacare is a good idea while 49% believe that it is bad.  Only 38% of respondents think they will be better off as a result of the ACA.

Details

Bill to Nullify Federal Gun Control Signed into Law in Alaska

JUNEAU, Ala  – Today, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell signed HB69, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, into law.

The bill nullifies a large swath of unconstitutional federal power over the right to keep and bear arms. It begins with the premise that violations of the 2nd Amendment are not law at all. It reads, in part:

a statute, regulation, rule, or order that has the purpose, intent, or effect of confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, or requiring the registration of any firearm or its ammunition infringes on an Alaskan’s right to bear arms in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and, therefore, is not made in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States, is not the supreme law of the land, and, consequently, is invalid in this state and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state

It continues, requiring the state to stand down on enforcement of federal laws violating the right to keep and bear arms:

Details