Minnesota Bills Would Nullify Warrantless Drone Spying

Companion bills in the Minnesota State House and Senate aim to curtail potential abuses by law enforcement pertaining to predator drones.

HF 612 and SF 485 were both introduced last month and they hope to specify guidelines to protect the privacy rights of Minnesotans. HF 612 has been referred to the Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee while SF 485 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The bills state that “law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather evidence or other information on individuals.” This is meant to safeguard individual citizens from excessive spying by law enforcement. However, some exceptions are given for law enforcement personnel to use drones.

Such exceptions include if it is necessary “to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is this risk” or “if the law enforcement agency first obtains a search warrant authorizing its use” or “if the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the
destruction of evidence.”

Although these exceptions may seem like they could be prone to abuse (ie. DHS fabricating evidence to show that a political dissident is involved in terrorism), Subsection 4 of the bill states that “A person aggrieved by a law enforcement agency’s violation of this section may bring a civil action against the agency.” This will hopefully give the public some recourse in fighting back against unlawful infringements on their rights if the bills are passed. The bills also make evidence collected in violation of these new rules inadmissible in the court of law.

Details

Nullifying Obamacare in Texas

HB 3785, authored by Rep. Charles Perry (HD 83), has been referred to the Federalism & Fiscal Responsibility Committee. This bill nullifies Obamacare in Texas and interposes against taxes created or increased by it. It’s not captioned as such, but those of us who worked on this bill call it the “Texas Taxpayer Protection Act”.

Part of the bill states:

The assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA) interferes with the right of the people of the State of Texas to regulate health care as they see fit.

Also, the bill states the United States Supreme Court decision upholding the PPACA as a tax is invalid.  One of the reasons stated was:

Details

Nulllification can lead to a State Economic and Prosperity Plan

Hear ye, hear ye.   Pull your chair up to the edge of the precipice. I have a story to tell…

Nullification can imply, if not be the road to  economic and prosperity as an action plan, demonstrating that State Soverignty is good the well being of its citizens.  Putting together three of TAC’s 10th Amendment legislations, plus creating a Health Free Zone in your  State could be the basis for revitalizing and promoting economic and prosperity for all in the State!

Based on a recent article, Create the first Health Freedom Zone in America. a live talk show referencing a couple great health reform ideas, Mike Adams has triggered an Action Plan for any state to move toward sovereignty. I am calling it the 2+2 plan= State Economic & Prosperity Plan.  Whether your State is nullifying ObamaCare or not, this plan opens the health field to competition, and creates a mecca for bringing commerce and prosperity to your State.

The 2+2 is a core strategy for state sovereignty and freedom.  The ‘+2′ part of the plan is a one-two punch for health, wealth and prosperity, but not self-reliance and the full blessings of liberty for you and your progeny.  Together, they are almost invincible.

The first ‘2′ in the “2+2″ is based on sovereignty principles for any state, country or wannabe self-sustaining jurisdiction. The ‘+2′ is viable actions a state can take.  Both 2’s in the ‘2+2′ are things a state can do using legislation, the Tenth Amendment, honor ‘the blessings of freedom,’ and create a viable economy in these trying and surely to become darker times ahead.

There are two fundamental principles for creating a viable self sustaining, self reliant and self standing state:  gaining control of the Purse & Sword. This is based on the solid work of Dr Vieira, the constitutional lawyer who advances this theme (video).  TAC has been tracking this, the Purse idea via the Constitutional Tender legislation and the Sword via the Defend the Guard legislation tracking .

Details

Tennessee State House and Senate Working To Stop Indefinite Detention

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.”

Details

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

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.

Details

To Protect the Second Amendment, Pennsylvanians Rediscover the Tenth

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.

Details

Michigan Legislature Works For Firearms Freedom

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.”

Details

Bill Proposed To Keep Federal Hands Off Alabama-Produced Firearms

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…

Details

Surprise: Law Professor Misinterprets Supremacy Clause

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.

Details

Oklahoma Legislation Would Nullify Agenda 21

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.

Details