Alaska REAL ID Nullification, Round Two.

In 2008, Alaska refused to implement REAL-ID with Senate Bill 202. This law states,

“A state agency may not expend funds solely for the purpose of implementing or aiding in the implementation of the requirements of the federal Real ID Act of 2005.”

DHS has been quietly working behind the scenes – trying to get states to implement REAL-ID through back door deals. One such deal has turned out to be a scandal in the state of Missouri. The Department of Revenue (DoR) in Missouri was caught red-handed. It was found that they were implementing sections of the real id act in defiance of a law banning it. They were also using DHS grants to scan biometric data pro, and storing that data to a 3rd party known for it’s workings with DHS, DoD, and the TSA. Click here for the full scandal.

As a result, the director of the DoR has stepped down. That’s not all, Representative Bahr has introduced legislation that would make it possible to fire any department director or deputy director caught “instances of misconduct, perjury before any committee of the general assembly, violation of any state statute, a conviction or plea of guilty for committing any crime, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude or oppression in office.”

In Alaska,

Details

Noncompliance Does Not Mean Spineless: Missouri Style

In 2009, the state of Missouri nullified the Real ID Act.

HB 361 set in stone how Missouri establishes residency, naturalization, and lawful immigration status. This bill also defined information included on a Missouri ID card. It specifically states that, “an applicant shall not have his or her privacy rights violated in order to obtain or renew a Missouri noncommercial driver’s license, noncommercial instruction permit, or a nondriver’s license.” The the law emphatically states,  “Missouri will not comply with the Department of Homeland Securities REAL-ID act.”

The department of revenue shall not amend procedures for applying for a driver’s license or identification card in order to comply with the goals or standards of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005, any rules or regulations promulgated under the authority granted in such act, or any requirements adopted by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for furtherance of the act.

Any biometric data previously collected, obtained, or retained in connection with motor vehicle registration or operation, the issuance or renewal of driver’s licenses, or the issuance or renewal of any identification cards by any department or agency of the state charged with those activities shall be retrieved and deleted from all databases. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any data collected, obtained, or retained for a purpose other than compliance with the federal REAL ID Act of 2005. For purposes of this section, “biometric data” includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Facial feature pattern characteristics;
(2) Voice data used for comparing live speech with a previously created speech model of a person’s voice;
(3) Iris recognition data containing color or texture patterns or codes;
(4) Retinal scans, reading through the pupil to measure blood vessels lining the retina;
(5) Fingerprint, palm prints, hand geometry, measuring of any and all characteristics of biometric information, including shape and length of fingertips or recording ridge pattern or fingertip characteristics;
(6) Eye spacing;
(7) Characteristic gait or walk;
(8) DNA;
(9) Keystroke dynamics, measuring pressure applied to key pads or other digital receiving devices.
5. No citizen of this state shall have his or her privacy compromised by the state or agents of the state. The state shall within reason protect the sovereignty of the citizens the state is entrusted to protect.

The End-Around

But it appears state bureaucrats are implementing Real ID through a back door, in direct violation of state law.

Details

South Carolina a Step Closer to Nullifying Obamacare

A bill that would nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in South Carolina through noncompliance passed out of a House committee Tuesday.

The Republican controlled House Judiciary Committee approved H3101 by a 14-9 vote along partisan lines.

The bill originally included penalties on federal agents who enforced the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,  but sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center  indicate the bill was dead with penalties included, and they were amended out.

(3) It is the stated policy of the South Carolina general assembly that provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 grossly exceeds the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.

(4) The provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 which exceed the limited powers granted to Congress pursuant to the Constitution, cannot and should not be considered the supreme law of the land.

(5,) The General Assembly of South Carolina has the absolute and sovereign authority to interpose and refuse to enforce the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 that exceed the authority of the Congress.

The bill also prohibits state cooperation with implementation  of the unconstitutional federal act within the state.

(A) No agency of the State, officer or employee of this State, acting on behalf of the state, may engage in an activity that aids any agency in the enforcement of those provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and any subsequent federal act that amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 that exceed the authority of the United States Constitution.

(B) The General Assembly…is empowered to take all necessary actions to ensure that the provisions of subsection (A) of this code section are adhered to by all agencies, departments and political subdivisions of the State.

Details

Maine Legislation Would Nullify Unconstitutional Hemp Ban

Maine LD 525 is an Act to Promote Industrial Hemp. This bill, sponsored by Representative Harvell, is currently in the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry.  If passed into law, it would authorize the growth and production of the plant within the state of Maine.

The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to regulate the production of hemp, or any agricultural product, within a state’s borders, but has banned it for decades.

Hemp is a major product worldwide, and is widely used in the United States in food products, clothing, oils and more.  It can be a competitor to the oil, cotton, and paper industries (and many more), which is a likely reason why the federal government refuses to budge on its view that no one in the US should produce it.  The results?  The United States is the world’s #1 importer of hemp.  The top 2 exporters are China and Canada.

However, the DEA stated in an FOIA request that they are “opposed to any consideration of hemp as a legitimate fiber or pulp product.” LD525 authorizes production in Maine, effectively nullifying the unconstitutional federal ban.

Details

Anti-Drone Bills Pass out of Committees in Tennessee

Drone regulation in Tennessee moved a step closer to reality this week.

Both the House and Senate versions of the Freedom of Unwarranted Surveillance Act moves forward in Tennessee out of their respective committees. SB796 unanimously passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee 9-0.  The House Civil Justice Committee recommended passage of HB591 if amended.

The bill prohibits the use of drones  by law enforcement agencies in Tennessee only under the following circumstances.

- Toe counter the high risk of terrorist attack by a specific person or organization.
- With a search warrant signed by a judge authorizing the use of a drone.
- With evidence of reasonable suspicion that there is an immediate threat such that “swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life.

The proposed amendments add two more exceptions for drone use.

Details

New Jersey is Losing the Battle of State Sovereignty by Asking Permission

Currently, online gambling has been signed into New Jersey State law and will be effective in about 3-9 months after the state Division of Gaming Enforcement sets a start date. This bill will allow all games played at Atlantic City to be available in an online format to accessed in New Jersey, other states, and even foreign countries. This law isn’t the right way to express State Sovereignty. It’s not even a nullification bill at all.

In fact, the law goes through great lengths to prove that New Jersey has found enough loopholes into being compliant with federal law.

In October 2006, the United States Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, 31 U.S.C. 5361 et seq., which generally prohibits the use of banking instruments, including credit cards, checks, and fund transfers, for interstate Internet gambling, essentially prohibiting online gambling by United States citizens, but which includes exceptions that permit individual states to create a regulatory framework to enable intrastate Internet gambling, provided that the bets or wagers are made exclusively within a single state under certain circumstances;

This law states right off the bat, the supremacy of this law belongs to the feds.

“Internet gaming in this State shall be subject to the provisions of, and preempted and superseded by, any applicable federal law. Internet gaming in this State shall be deemed to take place where a casino’s server is located in Atlantic City regardless of the player’s physical location within this State.”

Just like the Powerball lotto in many states, this law follows the federal regulations to a tee.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of pending before the Legislature as this bill, wagers may be accepted thereunder from persons who are not physically present in this State if the Division of Gaming Enforcement in the Department of Law and Public Safety determines that such wagering is not inconsistent with federal law or the law of the jurisdiction, including any foreign nation, in which any such person is located, or such wagering is conducted pursuant to an interstate compact to which this State is a party that is not inconsistent with federal law.”

This law includes taking bribes from the feds to distribute public service announcements on the dangers of gambling.

Details

Tennessee Medicaid Expansion Amendment Becomes the New Bill in Both House and Senate

Two hearings took place today in Nashville regarding the Medicaid Expansion. Those bills include Senate Bill 804 sponsored by Senator Kelsey and House Bill 937 sponsored by Representative Durham. Earlier this morning Governor Haslam had stated that he would not expand Medicaid this year.

During the hearings, the amendment was being distributed. It had been formulated this afternoon after the Governors speech. This amendment rewrites the bill by stating that if the Governor decides that he (or future Governor) would like to expand the Medicaid provision of the Affordable Care Act, he will need the legislatures approval first.

House Bill 937, by Representative Durham, was heard in the House Insurance and Banking Subcommittee. The chairman received the amendment and was asking if this was his plan for the affordable care act since they didn’t have the amendment this morning?

Representative Durham, didn’t have the answer. He knew that Governor Haslam “didn’t want to proceed at this time. When you get into budget amendments, an issue that is such importance, the entire legislature should get to hear that. When you are talking about a 33 billion dollar state budget, I just feel if it is of such importance like Medicaid expansion then we should be hearing just that. So the bill wouldn’t make expansion legal. But if we are going to do it we will do it by a joint resolution. I want everyone to be heard on that”

The chairman was confused by the amendment since the amendment deletes the bill and replaces it with how Representative Durham stated. He wanted the attorney to explain it for the record.

The Attorney stated (she had no prior notice of this amendment), “From looking upon it, it looks as though this with drafting code 5824 saying the Governor would not allow him to make any decision or obligate Tennessee with regards to the expansion of Medicaid Program without approval by a joint resolution from the general assembly. This is how I’m reading it. This (the amendment) would make up the new bill since it is deleting everything after the caption.”

Details

Will Nevada Nullify Unconstitutional Federal Marijuana Laws?

Assemblyman Joseph Hogan along with co-sponsors Andrew Martin and Heidi Swank have introduced AB402.

AB402 is,

An Act relating to controlled substances; providing in skeleton form for the decriminalization of the possession, use and delivery of marijuana by certain persons under certain circumstances; providing in skeleton form for the taxation of the production, processing and sale of marijuana; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

This bill, which was modeled after House Bill 150 from Hawaii, will legalize possession, cultivation, use those 21 and older of marijuana. This bill does not allow persons under the influence of marijuana to operate a vehicle, require an employer to accomodate the use of marijuana, to transfer marijuana to those under the age of 21, or require a property owner to allow marijuana use. This bill also establishes an excise tax on wholesale and retail sales.

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.

None.

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.

Details

Will Tennessee Lead on Stopping Drone Spying?

After watching the many oppositions to Nullification bills across the country, I was pleasantly surprised that the state of Tennessee was not one of these. In the case of drones used locally, usually anti-drone bills are opposed by lobbyists asking “what about all the jobs it will make” and some local law enforcement wanting bribe from the feds to get a drone. The exact opposite happened here in Nashville!

This week’s hearing started off with Representative Van Huss talking about the bill to nullify drones in Tennessee. He talked about an amendment in HB591. This amendment would allow a search warrant to be issued after 48 hours after an event that was captured by a drone’s surveillance.

Representative Mike Carter asked, “Why not just get a warrant prior? Why get a warrant after 48 hours? I want it to be used like the regular established procedures for warrants. I want a judge to say, this person’s privacy needs to be invaded.”

Representative Jon Lundberg added, “The way this is drafted would have the antithesis.”

Representative Carter stated, The amendment liberalizes where I want to go. If a warrant is not required for a helicopter (in this scenario) than why for a drone?

Representative Womick was under the impression that drones were only used by the military and vehemently opposed to the military operating in Tennessee. However, Representative Carter corrected him, “Drones are used by counties. Hamilton County bought one for $300,000 and no one knows how to fly it! This isn’t just for predator drones, this is for every drone.”

At which point, Representative Van Huss wanted to strike down his amendment. But that wasn’t good enough. Representative Stewart said, there is general support for this bill, but it needs some fine tuning. We should send it to the hill!

Details

The NRA has shown up. It’s now a 2nd Amendment Issue?

I have watched in Tennessee the fight to preserve the right to bear arms in the wake of current and looming federal actions. These actions provoked by the President’s executive orders and the upcoming actions from members of Congress will prohibit, restrict, tax and infringe on the right to bear arms on the individual states constitutions and the rights of the citizens of the union. In a hearing, the Tennessee Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Senator Kelsey repeatedly said, that the the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act is not a bill about the 2nd Amendment. His reason had been, the NRA has not shown up. To him and many other advocates of federal supremacy, the people of each state are not enough of a voice for the 2nd Amendment even though the 2nd Amendment states: “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.” Those in favor of federal supremacy have overlooked that the right to keep and bear arms is to the people.

But in Montana, the NRA did show up. His being there, is not only proof that this is about preserving the 2nd
Amendment, but it’s also a state’s rights and limiting the power of the federal government.

Brian Judy, a Montana state liason for the National Rifle Association provided testimony on HB 302.

I’m the Montana state liaison of the National Rifle Association, and we are speaking in support of HB302. As the sponsor (House Representative Krayton Kerns) indicated it’s a fairly simple bill. It would prohibit the state or local enforcement or the expenditure of state resources to enforce a federal ban on semi-automatic firearms or high capacity magazines. Some of the opponents say that there is a constitutional problem, that it (the Second Amendment Preservation Act) violates the supremacy clause. I assert that is incorrect. There are some states that are pushing similar legislation. But rather than prohibiting state enforcement, it will criminalize federal officials who come into the state and enforce federal law. It is conceivable that could have some supremacy clause issues. But that is not what this bill does. This bill is very narrow. It deals with what state and local enforcement can do. It is certainly within the purview of the state legislature to do that.

One of Montana’s own, former Ravalli county sheriff, Jay Printz generated the US Supreme Court precedent that provides the prevailing case law on this issue. That was his 1997 challenge on the interim provisions on the so-called Brady Bill that required background checks on gun purchasers. And the ruling was that it was unconstitutional. That the federal government could not commendeer local law enforcement. It basically said, allowing the federal government to draft the police of the 50 states into service would increase federal powers far beyond what the constitution intends. So that was an important ruling on states rights and limits federal power. For the purpose of the discussion of this bill. Let me close, while the feds cannot commandeer local law enforcement, the state certainly do have the right to set limits for local law enforcement. That simply is what this bill does. That gun bans are not what is wanted in Montana. With that, NRA supports HB 302.

Brian Judy has more testimony available on how federal laws not only infringe on the right to bear arms but on state’s rights in his Washington address on loopholes here. Brian Judy is an amazing speaker and gave solid testimony to the committee on federal infringements on the right to bear arms. And he has shown through Printz vs Supreme Court that it is the state’s responsibility to uphold the rights of their people. And, in other testimonies he has provided, he shows the same commitment to state’s rights and to the 2nd Amendment.

Details