A Liberty Preservation Act that would help thwart the unconstitutional indefinite detention efforts of the federal government has been introduced in Minnesota.
SF2854 is “a bill for an act relating to public safety; prohibiting persons from assisting the federal government to indefinitely detain certain persons; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statues, chapter 1,”
“Notwithstanding any law to the contrary except paragraph (b), no agency or employee of the state, including all political subdivisions, acting in the agency’s or employee’s official capacity, and no member of the Minnesota National Guard on official state duty shall knowingly aid an agency, agent, or employee of the federal government, or any corporation providing services to the federal government in any investigation, prosecution, detention, or transfer to a foreign jurisdiction or a person within the state pursuant to sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA for fiscal year 2012, or the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, Public Law 107-40, enacted in 2001, or any other provision of federal law which purports to authorize the indefinite detention, military tribunal, or transfer to a foreign jurisdiction of a person within the state of Minnesota..”
This bill would ban the state of Minnesota from cooperating with any federal attempts at indefinite detention within the state.
Minnesota Senator Branden Petersen introduced the bill, and provided the following reasoning for the bill’s inception:
“It is important to reaffirm the rights of all people against unconstitutional detention. In a nation that has been engaged in ongoing foreign entanglements for well over a decade coupled with disturbing revelations of state 4th amendment violations, all citizens must remain vigilant in defense of our liberties. We cannot let war or terrorism become a catch-all for the abridgement of constitutional rights.”
All of these states are following James Madison’s blueprint for stopping federal overreach. In The Federalist #46, he argued that a “refusal to comply with officers of the Union” along with other actions at the state and local level would create a situation where the federal government would have an almost impossible time enforcing their acts. When several states join together and do the same, Madison said it would “present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
The bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it will be debated. If the bill passes, Minnesota could join Alaska, California, Michigan, and Virginia, which have passed similar laws in the last two years.
If you live in Minnesota: click HERE for the steps you need to take to support SF2854
If you live in another state: Click HERE for information on how to fight back against indefinite detention in your state.
Latest posts by Dave Benner (see all)
- Interpretation of Law: The Constitution and the Contemporary - June 26, 2015
- Powers of the President: The Founders’ Vision vs Today - June 23, 2015
- Interview: Nullification, the Founders view and applications today - May 13, 2014