Navigation

Archive | Nullification

N.H. Senate Passes Bill Nullifying Federal Marijuana Laws 18-6

By on May 25, 2013 in News, Nullification, State Bills 1

CONCORD, N.H.  – New Hampshire moved a step forward toward legalizing marijuana for medical use, joining the swelling ranks of states nullifying the unconstitutional federal ban on weed.

On Thursday, the state Senate passed HB573 18-6.

The legislation would allow qualifying patients to legally possess and use marijuana to treat illnesses including cancer, glaucoma, AIDS and Crohn’s Disease. It would also create a system for setting up dispensaries in the state.

The House passed the bill 286-64 in March, but the Senate approved an amended version to satisfy several demands by Gov. Maggie Hassan. The Senate version strips allowances for growing marijuana at home and drops the number of approved dispensaries from five to four.  It also removes post-traumatic stress from the list of approved conditions and adds a resident requirement for an affirmative defense in court. Hassan has indicated she won’t sign a bill with a home-grown option, although she supported it as a Senator.

The legislation will now go back to the House. According to an AP report, it will likely ask to negotiate a compromise.

Activists say they hope to resurrect the home grow option in the final version, but even with the restrictions, the bill would drastically improve prospects for New Hampshire residents who currently risk prison if they treat their pain with marijuana.

Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Full California Assembly to Vote on Rejecting NDAA “Indefinite Detention”

By on May 24, 2013 in News, Nullification, State Bills 11

SACRAMENTO, Cal. (May 24, 2013) – Today, the California Assembly Appropriations Committee gave a “Do-Pass” approval to a bill that could render toothless the federal “indefinite detention” powers under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  The bill, by ASM Tim Donnelly was previously passed unanimously by the Public Safety Committee and is expected to get a vote in the full state assembly in the coming week.

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

If passed into law, AB351 would require that the state refuse to enforce or assist in the enforcement of indefinite detention as may have been authorized by either the 2012 NDAA or the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF).   It reads, in part:

“no agency of the State of California, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency, or a political subdivision, of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the California National Guard on official state duty shall knowingly aid an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of a person within California pursuant to

(A) Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA,
(B) the federal law known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), enacted in 2001″

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.

Weighing in on the bill, Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey noted the impact it would have if passed into law.  ”Passage of AB351 would mark the beginning of the end of indefinite detention in California.  In those limited situations where federal enforcement still does occur in the face of massive refusal by the state, Rosa Parks proved it: “No” can change the world.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Liberty Preservation: A Defense Against NDAA “Indefinite Detention”

By on May 18, 2013 in Nullification, Tenthers 3

On May 15, 2013, I served as Assemblyman Tim Donnelly’s witness for his bill A.B. 351,  the Liberty Preservation Act. A.B. 351 would, if signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown (D), establish a non-compliance framework with regard to Sections 1021 and 1022 (indefinite detention provisions) of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Testimony

A.B. 351 full hearing   Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

The Mainstream Media Is Recognizing The Supremacy of Nullification

By on May 15, 2013 in Liberty, Media, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 4

We at the Tenth Amendment Center have promoted the idea that nullification brings people from both sides of the political equation together. And although we have seen mainstream voices from the establishment left and establishment right come together to denounce nullification, the idea continues to catch on amongst the freedom-starved American people. One recent example of nullification catching on comes from the left as author W.W. Houston wrote a recent article for the Economist on May 9 triumphing the idea of nullification and states rights.

Houston began his article with an interesting anecdote about the founding of the Republic of Texas. According to legend, freedom fighters in Texas held up a flag over their cannon that said ‘COME AND TAKE IT’ in defiance of their Mexican oppressors. Houston brought up a recent bill that had passed the Texas House that declared all federal gun control laws to be null and void, comparing it to their revolutionary ancestors. Usually, you would expect a mainstream media outlet at this point to go on a tyrade against this legislation calling it “crazy”, “racist”, “extreme” and every other derogatory term they could come up with. However, this time the Economist has thrown us a curve ball and is actually running the pro-States Rights point of view.

The article goes on to give a solid description of the arguments and counter-arguments for nullification before closing tremendously with an eloquent defense of states rights. “The discretion of states to decide what federal laws they will enforce strikes me as part of a healthy division and balance of government power. Requiring that states devote its citizens’ resources to the enforcement of laws with which the state legislature disagrees seems to me straightforwardly to deny the democratic sovereignty of the state’s people,” Houston said. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Why Local Matters

By on May 9, 2013 in Nullification 4

The Kansas Chamber of Commerce again presented a plan earlier this year that attempted to liberate grocers in the state to sell wine and liquor. Soon after, they presented a bill to the legislature, hoping to liberalize the state’s regulation of alcoholic beverages. This is a regular occurrence, although it’s entirely unnecessary, given the recent history of alcohol legislation in the state of Kansas. If all of this seems strange to you, allow me to provide a little context.

Kansas has a storied history of alcohol prohibition; it was the first state to enact such a government program. Voters first moved to prohibit alcohol in 1881, and such restrictions continued until 1948 when again, a majority of Kansans voted to lift some prohibitions. Of course the 21st Amendment was adopted fifteen years prior, but that was of no concern to the legislature, who never considered the amendment, and to this day has not ratified it.

Carrie Nation made a name for herself in Kansas, helping to start a chapter of the Women’s Christian Temperance Movement. She began with harassing saloon owners and consumers of alcohol and within a short period was destroying their property. Wielding a hatchet, she would march into a saloon and attack the bar, before smashing as much of the stock as she could, to prevent the consumption of alcohol. Nation claimed to have been called to do this, and during her career of “hatchetations,” as they came to be known, was arrested dozens of times. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Will DC be the next “State” to Nullify Federal Prohibition?

By on May 4, 2013 in Big Brother, Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Drug War, Nullification 5

Oh the irony to think that the capital city of these united states will be nullifying their own law even while their agents are raiding dispensaries in the states.  The voters in the city of DC approved medical Marijuana in 1998, and finally all of the licensing is complete.  The dispensary by the name of Capital City Care will be the first to open on the 22nd of April within blocks of the White House, and with a clear view of the US Capital.  This will be a hugevictory for the forces of liberty, in the face of the growing police state.

After resisting the clear will of the American people for so long, DC could have to call it quits and accept the demise of the war on drugs (police state), as they join the 18 states that have already nullified the war on pot (as a legal drug) .  As I have always said, weed is much like the war on drugs.

Respectable opinion on weed seems to be that it is a “gateway drug”.  This is meant to give the impression that one puff of it will lead one through a gateway and down a path towards desperation, and dependence upon drugs for daily functioning.  Doing unspeakable things for the next hit of your current drug of choice.  Theft and violence will become the life of the addict or so says this paradigm.  In reality it is the war on drugs that is the gateway, it is a gateways towards tyranny, and authoritarianism.

It is ironically the so called “Constitutional” Conservative who are the biggest cheerleaders for this insane policy.  Even as they hold the correct position on so many policies that you should not pile additional laws on already illegal behavior (such as opposing gun control because murder is already illegal, or opposing hate crimes because the crimes they punish are already illegal.)  None the less they point towards the culture of crime that surrounds the drug trade (as surrounds all black markets regardless of the banned items for sale) and say “look drugs cause murders and robberies.”  Murder and theft are already illegal, so why is that an argument for prohibition? Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Understanding The 10th Amendment

By on April 26, 2013 in Big Government, Commentary, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, History, Liberty, Nullification, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 5

The “winners” write the history, and always in favor of their side of the “argument”.

Government’s job is to “control” the people. Control takes power and power comes at a price: the people’s liberty. In a nutshell, government power  stands as the enemy of liberty. And when it comes to the war between power and liberty, power generally triumphs.

Government wins.

And government writes our history.

Most people allow the government to educate their children and that means they learn the approved government version of history. Sadly, it is totally corrupt. Few Americans realize it and can’t, or wont, correct the mistake.

I will try to help correct a piece of the disinformation surrounding the 10th Amendment and put it all into the correct perspective for you.

We’ve  watched government trample on the  Constitution throughout most of our recent history. We do not have to look very far to see examples. President Bush’s Administration created the The Patriot Act, anything but patriotic. Throughout his terms in office, Bush completely disregarded what the Constitution said and wielded the arms of war with wanton disregard.

President Obama continues in the same vein with more anti-constitutional measures. When Congress does not do what Obama wants he creates Executive Orders with the force of law. Effectively legislating from the White House and overstepping his constitutional boundaries without any regard to the laws our country.

Our Constitution is a document designed to LIMIT the power of the federal government. It enumerates the exact duties, responsibilities and powers of each branch of the federal government. In other words, the federal government ONLY has the powers over things that are specifically spelled out in the Constitution. ALL OTHER POWERS are reserved for the states and people. This is succinctly spelled out in the 10th Amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act One Step Away from the Governor’s Desk

By on April 25, 2013 in Constitution, Liberty, Nullification, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 39

“The Second Amendment Preservation Act” successfully made its way through a Missouri State Senate Committee on Wednesday, bringing the state ever closer to protecting the natural rights of their citizens.

HB 436 was passed by a Senate Committee on a 4-1 vote. The bill was already passed by a strong veto-proof majority in the State House. It now awaits a full vote in the State Senate before it is fully passed and sent to the governor.

UPDATED 04-26 We’ve been informed that the Senate committee removed an unrelated amendment that the house inserted, so after passing the full senate it will first go back to the House for concurrence, then to the governor’s desk.

If passed into law, HB436 would nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books – or planned for the future.   It reads, in part:

All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

(2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:
(a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;
(b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;
(c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

The bill also does a service of providing the State Legislature and the public-at-large with a history lesson that is particularly appreciated by Tenthers, saying, “The limitation of the federal government’s power is affirmed under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Missouri Looking To Amend State Constitution To Bolster the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

By on April 11, 2013 in Announcements, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 8

The State of Missouri is getting serious when it comes to protecting the gun rights of its citizens, and the legislature has proposed amending their State Constitution to show they that mean business.

Senate Joint Resolution 14 was passed by a landslide 29 to 2 vote on Apr. 4, and this proposed State Constitutional Amendment would provide ‘that a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in defense of their family, in addition to the current rights in defense of home, person and property.’

The bill gets even better from there as it would not just re-affirm gun ownership rights for individuals but it would also remove ‘language stating that the right to keep and bear arms did not justify the wearing of concealed weapons’ and provide ‘that the rights guaranteed under this provision of the Constitution are unalienable. The State of Missouri is obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement.’

The language in this proposed amendment is clear that the State of Missouri must act decisively in protecting the God-given right to bear arms. It is unclear how this would exactly take shape during a full-scale federal ban and seizure of firearms, but this type of action is a decisive rebuke of the would-be gun grabbers and creates the legal requirement that the State defend against such acts. The message is being sent loud and clear to the federal usurpers that at least one state will be firmly on the side of the people should they overstep their bounds on this important issue. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

North Carolina Bill would Nullify Many Federal Gun Laws

By on April 9, 2013 in Constitution, Nullification, State Sovereignty 7

North Carolina is the latest state to take a stand against federal gun control laws, as the Second Amendment Protection Act is now making its way through their State House.

House Bill 518 was introduced on Tuesday and is co-sponsored by an impressive 22 legislators with Reps. Jones, Holloway, R. Brown and Millis as the primary sponsors. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on Wednesday where it awaits further action.

The bill states that “The North Carolina General Assembly finds that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. The North Carolina General Assembly affirms this right as a constitutionally protected right in this State… This Article applies to firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured in North Carolina.”

The bill continues on to lay out rules to protect firearm and firearm accessories made in North Carolina saying, “A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in North Carolina and that remains exclusively within the borders of North Carolina is not subject to federal law, federal taxation, or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the North Carolina General Assembly that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.”

To clarify any possible loopholes that the Feds may try to exploit within the law, the bill very specifically states, “The authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made within North Carolina borders from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into North Carolina from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because the firearm accessory is attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in North Carolina.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading