Navigation

Archive | Constitution

Maine Bill would nullify indefinite detention under the NDAA

By on March 19, 2013 in Constitution, Nullification 14

The nationwide fight to nullify the indefinite detention provisions (Sections 1021 and 1022) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 carries on as localities, counties, and states introduce and pass resolutions against the detention powers the federal government has delegated itself.

Maine has now joined the ranks of states willing to challenge the federal government’s over-zealousness.

LD1054, introduced by Representative Libby, prohibits the enforcement of the NDAA for FY 2012 in the State of Maine.

The bill both prohibits and requires the following:

  1. Prohibits within the State the activities authorized by the Act that the Legislature finds unconstitutional;
  2. Prohibits the State from providing material support to or participating in the implementation of provisions of the Act that the Legislature finds unconstitutional;
  3. Requires the Department of Public Safety to report to the Governor and Legislature any attempt by an agency or agent of the Federal Government to implement the Act through the operation of any state department or agency;
  4. Makes a federal official or employee of a corporation doing business with the Federal Government who enforces or attempts

“Finally politicians acting on their duty to interpose when the federal government acts outside its Constitutional realm. Until this bill becomes law, all Mainers and persons in Maine should take action to preserve liberty for themselves and their community,” said Nick Hankoff, a member of the Tenth Amendment Center’s outreach team. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 14

Tennessee State House and Senate Working To Stop Indefinite Detention

By on March 11, 2013 in Constitution, Liberty, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 4

Two bills have been introduced in the Tennessee legislature to stop the indefinite detention provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act from being complied with by local and state law enforcement officials.

House Bill 1059 and Senate Bill 1290 were introduced on Feb. 11 and Feb. 14, respectively. They were referred to the State Government Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee where they currently await further action. HB 1059 was sponsored by Rep. Rogers (R-Goodlettsville) with seven more House members adding their support. SB 1290 was sponsored by Sen. Summerville (R-Dickson).

HB 1059 says, “Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, no agency of this state, political subdivision acting in his or her official capacity, member of the Tennessee National Guard on official state duty or member of the Tennessee state guard and civil air patrol shall aid an agency of the armed forces in any investigation, prosecution or detention of any United States citizen pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act of fiscal year 2012.” The Senate Bill contains the same text.

Although these bills do not interpose any criminal penalties for feds who try to kidnap Americans without proper legal protections, they do get the incredibly important idea of non-compliance to federal laws out there to Tennesseans. These bills are a firm stand against the dangerous idea promulgated all too often that the states wield nothing more than vestigial power and are meant to acquiesce to whatever their federal masters dictate to them, no matter how obviously unjust it is.

Sadly, there are still many voices of the soon-to-be obsolete political establishment spewing the same old tired nonsense in opposition. A great example of this is Tennessee State House Democratic Caucus Chairman Mike Turner. He said to the Knoxville News Sentinel that “[Republicans and Democrats] need to show some courage to put these extremists in line. … There are extremists in both political parties. A lot of their extremists got elected to the Legislature. Our extremists didn’t get elected to the Legislature.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 4

Florida County Fights Back Against Federal Gun Grabbers

By on March 11, 2013 in Big Government, Constitution, Liberty, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement 3

Collier County, Florida has taken measures to protect the safety and security of its citizens, passing a resolution that will nullify any federal gun control measures in that county.

The resolution was passed on Feb. 26 with a unanimous vote and declares ‘that no county resources be used in the implementation of any Federal law, executive order or executive directive that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.”

The resolution also calls for the state government to follow their lead and be vigilant in defending the liberties of Floridians saying, “The Collier County Board of Commissioners calls upon the Governor and the Florida Legislature to immediately pass an act to nullify the implementation within the State of Florida of any Federal law, executive order or regulations restricting the right to keep and bear arms.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 3

Health Care Freedom of Choice Constitutional Amendment – It is Time Georgia

By on February 26, 2013 in Constitution, Nullification, State Sovereignty 3

The Citizens of the State of Georgia need to make their voices heard in this moment of history.

Washington D.C. has felt it appropriate to make its influence known in every county across these States United. It behooves The People to stand up in defense of the rights and liberties which were secured to us in the Constitution of the United States. In the name of general welfare and safety, the federal legislation machine manufactures and spits out unconstitutional laws in order to control us in the realms of  healthcare, gun ownership, education and property rights to name just a few.

Judge Andrew Napolitano stated a truth for the people to stand on in a commentary concerning President’s Day:

All presidents but Jefferson have argued that their first job was to keep us safe. All presidents but Jefferson were wrong. If you read the Constitution, you will see that the President’s first job – as Jefferson understood well – is to keep us free.

And The People are standing… The calls for nullification of  many over-reaching unconstitutional federal laws can be heard throughout the country and are now daily news. The nullification naysayers, as well, continue their dribble at the risk of their own liberty and freedom. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 3

To Protect the Second Amendment, Pennsylvanians Rediscover the Tenth

By on February 23, 2013 in Constitution, Federalism, Firearms Freedom Act, Nullification, State Sovereignty 5

After the flurry of new legislation introduced in the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2013, gun owners should consider sprucing up their spring wardrobes with Tenth Amendment t-shirts and hats.

In mid-January, State Representative Daryl Metcalfe proposed the Right to Bear Arms Protection Act (HB 357) which nullifies all federal firearms laws adopted after December 31, 2012. HB 357, which provides criminal penalties for attempted enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws in Pennsylvania, amassed 67 co-sponsors in the last month.

Following closely on the heels of HB 357, State Representative Matt Gabler introduced the Firearms Freedom Act (HB 475) which prevents any federal regulation of firearms and ammunition manufactured and sold within Pennsylvania’s borders. Citing the 9th and 10th amendments as valid consideration for Pennsylvania entering in the union compact in 1787, HB 475 draws a line in the sand against federal laws that are offensive to intrastate commerce and Pennsylvania and federal constitutional guarantees of gun rights. HB 475 garnered 49 cosponsors in the last three weeks.

Despite the popularity of both pending nullification bills, several Republican and Democratic state legislators have refused to join as cosponsors, invariably citing the Supremacy Clause for the proposition that federal laws are supreme and only federal courts can say otherwise. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 5

Michigan Legislature Works For Firearms Freedom

By on February 3, 2013 in Constitution, Firearms Freedom Act, Liberty, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 0

Michigan is yet another state that is fighting for its residents’ right to keep and bear arms. Over a dozen State House members are co-sponsoring a Firearms Freedom Act that was introduced on Jan. 24.

House Bill 4099 is supported by Reps. MacMaster, Genetski, Lauwers, Rogers, McMillin, Somerville, Pettalia, Daley, Rendon, Kurtz, Haveman, Kelly and Johnson and is intended to stop the federal gun grabbers from controlling firearms made within the State of Michigan. Michigan joins Pennsylvania, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina and a whole slew of other states that are battling back against federal gun control measures with legislation introduced during the 2013 session.

The bill asserts state sovereignty and affirms the natural rights of its citizens stating, “Amendment II of the constitution of the United States reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Michigan was admitted to statehood, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Michigan and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Michigan and the United States.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 0

Bill Proposed To Keep Federal Hands Off Alabama-Produced Firearms

By on January 28, 2013 in Activism, Constitution, Education, Firearms Freedom Act, Government, History, Liberty, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 14

There has been a growing number of states recently looking to pass laws that nullify overreaching federal intrusions on Second Amendment rights with Alabama being one of the latest states looking to protect the natural rights of its citizens.

Alabama Senate Bill 43 is called the ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ and it intends to ‘exempt from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within the borders of Alabama.’ It was introduced on Jan. 11 and will be read and referred to the State Senate committee on Judiciary Feb. 5.

Although this bill does not go after all possible federal restrictions on guns within Alabama, it is definitely another step in the right direction toward building resistance at the state level to malevolent power grabs from Washington D.C. The text of the bill begins specifically with an explanation of the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution as the foundation for this peace of legislation.

“The guaranty of [Tenth Amendment] powers is a matter of contract between the state of Alabama and its people and the United States as of the time that compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Alabama and the United States in 1819,” the bill states.

The bill continues on to cite its own State Constitution as grounds for its legitimacy and necessity saying, “Section 26 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, secures to Alabama citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of an individual Alabama citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or herself and the state.”

In addition to safeguarding the Bill of Rights, the bill also contains a nice TAC-approved history lesson with references to the compact theory of the Union endorsed by Thomas Jefferson. The people of Alabama apparently don’t interpret the Constitution as giving the federal government absolute power to run roughshod over their freedoms.

Senate Bill 43 was co-sponsored by State Senators Allen, Fielding, Smith, Waggoner and Ward.

LEGISLATION AND TRACKING

If you would like to see model legislation to introduce in your state to nullify federal firearm laws, please see The Tenth Amendment Center’s Model Legislation: The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act.

Track the status of Firearms Freedom Acts in states around the country HERE

ACTION ITEMS

For more information on contacting your State Senator to urge their support of this bill if you are a resident of Alabama, click HERE.

Continue Reading 14

Enemy of the State

By on January 28, 2013 in Activism, Big Brother, Big Government, Congress, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, Government, Military, Terrorism, Uncategorized 10

In a published FOIA request, an Airman stationed in the UK was investigated after a mental breakdown caused by conflicting values of US military’s mission and her own political beliefs. She was found to sympathize with Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Wikileaks. She had admitted to communicating her political ideas with various organizations known for anti-war/anti-military sentiments on Twitter and to a UK journalist. She also attended the Julian Assange Trial. However, her own admission and tweets revealed that she was never asked to release any intelligence to these groups and denied volunteering any intelligence to any journalist or group. The US Airforce Office of Special Investigations filed a complaint report on matters alleging “Communicating with the Enemy.”

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 104: Communicating with the Enemy states:

“Any person who–
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

Who is the enemy in this document? Is it Julian Assange? Wikileaks? Journalists? Bloggers? Social media users? Those opposed to an unconstitutional and failed foreign policy? Anti-war organizations? The leaked document does not directly point to any person or organization but acknowledges who the Airman was in contact with and her activities surrounding her political beliefs. But, constitutionally speaking, who gets to determine the enemy?

The Constitution does not provide any structure to determine an enemy. An enemy could be those the US is at war with. Congress has the power to declare war but there is no framework as to what constitutes a declaration of war. In Federalist Paper number 3, it states, “The just causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 10

Surprise: Law Professor Misinterprets Supremacy Clause

By on January 26, 2013 in Commentary, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Education, Federalism, Founding Principles, Government, Law, Nullification, State Sovereignty 20

Have you ever read an article that you were not sure what stance the author takes on the subject but presents both sides of the argument at once? I had the distinguished experience recently when I was reading the article titled “Sheriffs, State Lawmakers Push Back on Gun Control” on the Newsmax website (see: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gun-Control-Pushback/2013/01/17/id/471825). It was a little confusing until I got about half way through it and read a quote by Sam Kamin.

Sam is a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. One would think that if someone was a law professor that they would actually know and understand the law. Or in this case, a constitutional law professor – who should then know and understand the constitution. It is highly unfortunate when people like Sam misspeak about a subject. Their title gives them some credibility so people think what they say is true because they are supposedly an “expert”. But, when they make a mistake it is still a mistake.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Clause 2 reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sam makes the comment that state legislatures can pass any laws they want but that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes such actions unconstitutional. He further states that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme. Nothing could be farther from the truth. His blanket statement implies that the state laws are not necessary and state governments are not necessary because the federal government and its laws are supreme. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 20

Oklahoma Legislation Would Nullify Agenda 21

By on January 15, 2013 in Activism, Big Government, Constitution, Nullification, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 12

Senator Patrick Anderson has introduced a bill in the Oklahoma State Senate that combats the United Nations Agenda 21 and reaffirms the sovereignty of the American people against globalist and internationalist forces.

The bill as introduced, SB23, is for “prohibiting state and political subdivisions from implementing certain Agenda 21 policies supported by the United Nations.” The law, if passed, will ensure that the state of Oklahoma “shall not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process.”

If this passes, it will be a big win for both Constitutionalists and supporters of liberty. Private property rights for Oklahomans would be strengthened while the process of representation for the American people will be protected from a pernicious outside influence.

The US federal government officially endorsed Agenda 21 in 1992 when President George H. W. Bush signed on to a treaty with 177 other countries that he personally described as ’mammoth’ at a U.N. meeting called the ’Earth Summit’ in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. He triumphed this accomplishment as emblematic of a world coming together to maintain a safe, living environment for present and future generations. However, there is more to Agenda 21 than what these world leaders are willing to let on. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 12