Author Archive | Tenther News

This week’s episode is made possible in part by the new book, Our Last Hope. The status quo has failed you – voting the bums out is a failure as a strategy. This book offers a new path – one that is already winning. Get it online at tenthamendmentcenter.com/ourlasthope/

States around the country are refusing to implement Health Exchanges as mandated under Obamacare, the so-called Affordable Care Act. Rick Perry has said Texas will not implement. So has Governors Haley in South Carolina, Parnell in Alaska, Deal, Kasich in Ohio – and others.

Maine’s Governor Paul LePage took what appears to be the strongest stand in opposition when he sent a letter that said, “Because the guidance issued in the August 13, 2012 request of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is not legally binding, the State of Maine will not be submitting a Declaration Letter. Instead, this letter serves as the state’s position regarding this issue. Since the ACA was signed into law, the State of Maine, along with several other states, has repeated on a number of occasions and we continue to believe that the law has severe legal problems, is bad policy, and overreaches into the lives and pocketbooks of fellow Americans.”

Some Obamacare opponents still wonder what these steps will actually achieve. While refusing to create an exchange won’t eliminate the Act, it will certainly create heavy logistical and financial difficulties for the federal government. The idea behind the refusal is simple: If the federal government had the resources and the manpower to do all this on its own, it wouldn’t have attempted to mandate the states into covering such massive costs. When enough states refuse to comply, the theory goes, it’ll create a burden that could cause the feds to reconsider, as it has done repeatedly since 2008 over the Bush-Era Real ID act.

At very least, even if not successful in bringing down the Affordable Care Act, resisting implementation at every turn possible holds the high moral ground. As Governor LePage seems to be indicating as well when he said, “Maine will not be complicit in the degradation of our nation’s health care system.”

But make no doubt about it, while this is a good first step, it is only a first step. As Tenth Amendment Center communications director, Mike Maharrey, put it, “Hopefully, mass refusal will not only gum up the system, but set the stage for more aggressive efforts to block this unconstitutional and economically untenable act.”

For information on how to deal with the next step, you can download the TAC’s FREE 18-page organizer’s toolkit at tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullifyobamacare

In other news, Joel Poindexter reports that in the wake of two states – Washington and Colorado – flat out defying the federal government’s war on weed by fully legalizing the plant, more states will be considering legislation to do the same in 2013. Continue Reading →

This week’s episode is made possible in part by the new book, Our Last Hope. The status quo has failed you – voting the bums out is a failure as a strategy. This book offers a new path – one that is already winning. Get it online at tenthamendmentcenter.com/ourlasthope/

Coming off election victories in six states, the nullification is moving full steam ahead. This morning, Texas state Representative David Simpson filed House bill 80, the Texas Travel Freedom Act. If passed, the new law would make it a criminal act to intentionally touch “the anus, breast, buttocks, or sexual organ of the other person, including touching through clothing,” without probable cause in the process of determining whether to grant someone access to a public venue or means of public transportation.

The act also provides additional protection for minors.

A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he…removes a child younger than 18 years of age from the physical custody or control of a parent or guardian of the child or a person standing in the stead of a parent or guardian of the child.

If passed, the law would prevent TSA agents from carrying out the most intrusive pat-down searches at airports across Texas. Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey said it only makes sense to put limits on these types of personal searches.

“If you walk up to somebody and grab their crotch out on the street, it will land you in jail. Blue uniforms and federal badges don’t grant some goon the power to sexually assault you, or at least they shouldn’t. A person doesn’t forfeit her or his personal dignity with the purchase of an airline ticket.”

Simpson said that since the federal government won’t back off of these intrusive and unconstitutional searches, the responsibility of protecting its citizens falls to the states, and ultimately the people themselves. Simpson will talking about this legislation further when he joins Tenther Radio as a guest this week. Tune in live on Wednesday night at 9pm eastern at radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com

In Alabama, where people voted to ban health mandates by a margin of 60%-40%, Governor Robert Bentley seems to be stepping up to follow the instructions of the people there. In a press release after the vote, he stated, “The worst piece of legislation that has ever been passed in my lifetime by Congress is this quote ‘Affordable Health Care Act. It is not affordable and it is not health care. It is the worst — ah, I said that. I don’t have to say it twice.”

“They have made a mistake in the bill,” he continued. “When they wrote the bill, they only talked about state exchanges. So if I refuse — like a lot of conservative governors are doing — to set up a state exchange, then it’s going to throw a monkey wrench in all of the stuff that’s going on. And I’m telling you folks, the states may be the last great hope — to be the firewall — against the implementation of this health care bill.” Continue Reading →

This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for order at tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie

*******

President Obama and Congress insist they have the authority to force every American to buy health insurance.

Last summer, the Supreme Court put its rubber stamp on that notion, ruling that the federal government does indeed possess the authority to force all 350-plus million Americans into a one-size fits all health care system via its taxing authority.

Florida voters will have the opportunity to tell the feds to go pound the plentiful Sunshine State sand on Nov. 6 when they consider Amendment 1, a health care freedom amendment.

If passed, the amendment will “prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person or employer to purchase, obtain, or otherwise provide for health care coverage.” The proposed amendment would also allow health care providers to accept direct payment for services.

Call it a tax or call it a penalty, in effect, the amendment would nullify the insurance mandate written into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Amendment 1 would “exempt persons, employers, and health care providers from penalties and taxes for paying directly or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services; and prohibit laws or rules from abolishing the private market for health care coverage of any lawful health care service.”

The Florida legislature placed the amendment on the ballot. It passed the Florida Senate on March 9, 2011, by a 29-10 margin. The House overwhelmingly agreed, passing the measure 80-37 on May 4 that same year. To become part of the Florida constitution, the amendment must garner at least 60 percent of the votes when Floridians go to the polls.

Rep. Scott Plakon (R-Longwood) sponsored the Amendment in the House.

“I say keep your hands off my freedom.”

In Colorado and Washington State, two initiative measures that would nullify parts of the unconstitutional federal drug war are holding strong. Continue Reading →

This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for order at tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie

*******

From New Jersey, Benjamin Mankowski, Sr reports that the state are some small sparks of hope when it comes to nullification of Obamacare. Governor Christie vetoed the bill that would have implemented the health insurance exchanges, and there is hope that he will do so again.

Assemblywoman Alison Littel-McHose introduced legislation to nullify the Affordable Care Act, and the bill will be up for consideration in the 2013 legislative session. In other states, grassroots groups are forming to pressure state legislators to introduce the same. Activists are building networks in Texas, Ohio, Idaho and elsewhere, and we’ll be reporting on their progress as news comes in.

In the Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman wrote an article that seems to not only get, but support, the basic principles of nullification. He writes, On Nov. 6, residents of Colorado, Oregon and Washington will vote on ballot measures to allow the regulated production, sale, and use of pot.

In Colorado, which already has a large network of medical marijuana dispensaries, familiarity has bred acceptance. One of the most noteworthy headlines of 2011 came on a news release from Public Policy Polling: “Colorado favors gay marriage, marijuana use, loves Tebow.” Affection for the Denver quarterback may have ebbed since he went to the New York Jets, but the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012 is leading in the polls.

Weed would remain illegal under federal law, but good luck to the feds trying to enforce that ban if a state abandons it. As the Drug Policy Alliance notes, medical marijuana has gotten established over the objections of Washington. Continue Reading →

This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for order at tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie

*******

From JG Vibes, via LewRockwell.com, we learn of another case of successful jury nullification – this time in Minnesota. A man charged with violating the state’s restrictions on raw milk sales was acquitted in what he and his supporters called a victory for consumer freedom.

Over the past two years, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture has illegally raided Alvin’s van, warehouse, and farm resulting in the multiple charges that were decided upon in court last week. Technically, Alvin was guilty of breaking the laws in question, even though the laws are totally ridiculous and unjust. Luckily this jury was informed about the process of jury nullification, and their legal right to rule in favor of the accused for breaking unjust laws.

According to the Fully Informed Jury Association “Minnesota has long had highly visible FIJA Activists volunteering their time and efforts to educate every potential juror in Minnesota about the right of the people to veto bad laws through the use of the Juror Veto, or, as it is commonly called, Jury Nullification. As laws become more and more invasive, punitive, and draconian, prison populations become more and more peopled by harmless, productive people, who have harmed no other person. Jurors can stop the enforcement of bad laws. Jurors have stopped bad laws since freedom of religion was defended by jurors, and by later jurors who refused to enforce slavery. We, the owners of all government, retain the peaceful, lawful right to refuse to enforce bad laws made by some judge or politician. Courageous jurors have always stood firm – for the human rights of their families and neighbors – by refusing to sanction bad laws. The right of the People to drink the milk of their choice, and to feed their children healthy foods, is a human right.”

This news comes just weeks after a jury in New Hampshire dropped felony marijuana cultivation charges against a Rastafarian man because they believed that punishing him for the offense would be unjust. Hopefully what we are seeing is a trend, and as more people become informed about jury nullification there will be less nonviolent people put in cages for breaking unjust laws.

From the CATO institute, Tad DeHaven tells us about the “No More Solyndras Act” charade. The House of Representatives recently passed the “No More Solyndras Act” on a mostly party-line vote. However, instead of terminating the Department of Energy loan guarantee program that subsidized Solyndra and other boondoggles, the bill allows applicants who filed before the first of this year to still receive handouts. Continue Reading →

This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for order at tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie

*******

After some heavy courtroom back and forth on NDAA kidnapping powers resulted in the federal government still holding on to the power to “indefinitely detain” anyone without due process, the People of Michigan have an opportunity to take liberty into their own hands instead of waiting on the highly suspect and unreliable federal court system.

State Rep. Tom McMillin introduced House Bill 5768, which would require all state agencies and employees to refuse compliance with such detention powers being used against any person in the state of Michigan. Tomorrow, Tuesday September 25, there will be a meeting of the Oversight, Reform and Ethics committee to consider the bill. Activists are urged to attend and voice support at the Anderson House Building in Landing, Michigan.

Also this morning, the Oakland County commissioners will consider similar legislation on a local level – introduced by Jim Runestad. We’ll be sure to update you with more information as we have it at tenthamendmentcenter.com

Susanne Posel at Infowars.com reports that the Obama Administration is using another excuse to restrict firearms ownership. Through the Justice Department, they given the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives the authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” In effect: those who are convicted of crimes involving alcohol and/or substance abusers will have their right to bear arms revoked.

By misuse of the civil-forfeiture doctrine, rights and constitutional limitations are circumvented while the owner of the property will have it taken without recourse. Continue Reading →

This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for order at tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie

*******

Shahid Buttar of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee reports that even in the wake of Constitution Day, last week Congress is very close to some major constitutional abuses – once again. This time it was the House of Representatives who prematurely voted to extend FISA by a vote of 301-118.

When Congress first voted back in 2008 to give the National Security Agency the power to eavesdrop on any—in other words, every–American without any reason for individual suspicion, it did so without a full picture of what it allowed. Indeed, the full contours of the program remain secret even today.

The only reason the NSA’s spying powers have survived this long is because courts have refused to consider claims that they are unconstitutionally invasive. The Supreme Court will consider one such case this fall — which, if successful, will merely allow the several year process of a litigation challenge to finally begin.

Even though much of it remains shrouded in secrecy, we do know a few things about the NSA’s warrantless spying program authorized by FISA.

We also know that the Obama administration has supported the Bush-Cheney NSA policy, extending it once before — even though Senator Obama, before winning the White House, promised at one point to vote against it. Until President Obama signed a 2011 law granting our military the potential power to detain any American indefinitely without proof of crime, FISA was the high water mark of the post 9-11 national security state.

We know that FISA has enabled the most pervasive state surveillance system ever known to humankind. The only settings in which powers like it have ever existed are dystopian science fiction novels.

Even the former Soviet Union and contemporary China, for all their efforts to control their people, lacked the resources to conduct the kind of monitoring that the NSA does every day — not only on terror suspects, but on you and your family.

According to Joe Wolverton in the New American magazine, a leaked Executive Order is attempting to give the feds Control over all cybersecurity. Continue Reading →

This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for order at tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie

*******

As the world now knows, Mitt Romney is not for “getting rid of all” of the president’s signature healthcare reform. And, according to Jack Kenny of the New American Magazine, if he gets to preserve all the features of the Affordable Care Act that he likes, there may not be much replacing to do.

Kenney continues – Romney, who described himself in the Meet the Press interview as someone “as conservative as the Constitution,” has yet to explain where in the Constitution he finds the power delegated to Congress to prescribe the terms of insurance policies and to mandate whom insurance companies must cover. The clause (Article I, Section 8) that authorizes Congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes” is a delegation of power to regularize the rules of trade, not to dictate the content of the goods or services that may be traded. The primary aim was to prevent states from levying their own imposts or tariffs on foreign imports or upon goods shipped from one state to another, as occurred under the Articles of Confederation. That concern was well described in the December 5, 1787 edition of the Massachusetts Centinel:

“For if one State makes a law to prohibit foreign goods of any kind, or to draw a revenue, from any imposition upon such goods, another State is sure to take the advantage, and to admit such goods free of costs. By this means it is well known how the trade of Massachusetts is gone to Connecticut, and that for want of a revenue, our own State taxes are increased.” Continue Reading →

This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for order at tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie

*******

By now, you have likely heard about Brandon Raub, the Marine veteran in Chesterfield, Va. involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for evaluation due to posts he made on Facebook.

FBI and Secret Service agents, along with Chesterfield police, reportedly questioned Raub. Local police then took him into custody and transported him to Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell. Police, the FBI and the Secret Service all said Raub was not arrested. Chesterfield police issued a statement Monday saying Chesterfield mental health crisis intervention workers recommended that officers take Raub into emergency custody and bring him in for a mental evaluation.

Last Monday, Special Justice Walter Douglas Stokes ordered Raub detained for up to 30 days for further psychological evaluation “for statements that are controversial and terrorist in nature,” according to his Rutherford Institute attorney. He was released days later.

There are a number of people who are claiming that this was the first public arrest under indefinite detention powers of the NDAA. These claims are wrong. Raub was detained under Virginia’s civil involuntary commitment law. The fact that the state can involuntarily commit a person to a mental institution based on Facebook posts warrants a great deal of concern and scrutiny. But those of us who oppose civil liberty violations must frame our arguments in a factual manner. The incident certainly illustrates the danger of granting the federal government power to detain people through vaguely worded language in the NDAA. But we must refrain from directly linking the action taken against Raub to the NDAA. Creating false narrative hurts our cause and shatters our credibility.

On the other hand, a report by Tangerine Bolen gives us an update on the lawsuit in federal court on the NDAA. When government lawyers were asked directly if the federal government was detaining people under the act – even after injunction against it by Judge Forest – the government attorneys refused to confirm.

In Maine, Chris Dixon reports that last Monday night, the Androscoggin County Republican Party overwhelmingly passed a pro-nullification resolution. Continue Reading →

This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for order at tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie

*******

According to a report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in order to Make Sure that criminals get no location privacy, the 6th Circuit federal court kills it for everyone else too.

As part of an ongoing investigation into a drug trafficking organization, DEA agents obtained approval from a federal magistrate judge to access the “subscriber information, cell site information, GPS real-time location, and ‘ping’ data” from a pre-paid wireless phone through the use of an admininstrative order (PDF) issued under the Stored Communications Act, which does not require “probable cause” like a search warrant. On appeal the defendant Melvin Skinner, argued that the three day warrantless cell phone tracking violated the Fourth Amendment, but the Sixth Circuit disagreed.

In what can only be described as a results-oriented opinion, the court found Skinner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone location data because “if a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal.” Otherwise, “technology would help criminals but not the police.” In other words, because cell phones can be used to commit crimes, there can’t be any Fourth Amendment privacy rights in them. If this sounds like an over-simplistic description of the legal reasoning in an opinion we disagree with, the sad reality is that the court’s conclusion really did boil down to this shallow understanding of the law.

Somehow, the Sixth Circuit lost sight of the fact that its attempt to ensure criminals cannot “use modern technological devices to carry out criminal acts” means that innocent people will have to lose their privacy rights. Judge Berzon of the Ninth Circuit recently noted a fear that “understandable abhorrence” of child pornography crimes “can infect judicial judgment” and lead to incorrect legal results that erode constitutional protections against intrusive computer searches for everyone. This fear is even greater when the issue before a court is the scope of privacy protections for a cell phone, a device carried by far more innocent people than criminals. Judge Berzon wrote judges must “remember that the protections of the Fourth Amendment do not depend on the nature of the suspected criminal activity, any more than they do on the race or gender of the suspect.”

According to a report from Joel Poindexter, a confederacy of professional sports leagues and the NCAA have filed suit against New Jersey, in attempt to prevent the people of the state from gambling there legally. Continue Reading →