You have to love this panel…. All to the left, and the one “token” Republican they have is a former Kansas politician saying that this is a problem because none of the traditional Republicans are in the state legislature.
Colorado’s Industrial Hemp Bill (SB13-241) passed the last legislative hurdle as the State Senate concurred with the State House’s minor Amendments. The bill now moves to the Governor Hickenlooper’s desk for his signature.
If the bill becomes law, Colorado will nullify unconstitutional federal laws and regulations which ban farmers from growing this remarkable product. Currently, the United States is the world’s largest importer of Hemp (with China and Canada the top two exporters in the world), and the Colorado legislature wants their citizens to be allowed to participate and profit in this market.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to ban the production of this industrial plant, but has persisted in preventing its domestic production. The result? Products with hemp that are readily available at your local grocery store must be imported from another country – resulting in higher costs for you and fewer farming jobs in America.
The United States is the only developed nation that fails to cultivate industrial hemp as an economic crop, according to the Congressional Resource Service. Recent congressional research indicates that the hemp market consists of over 25,000 various products. The same research found that America imports over $400 million worth of hemp from other countries. At this time of economic difficulty, 13-241 would not only expand freedom and support the Constitution, it would also be a great jobs bill.Details
Do you believe in self-rule? Can people determine for themselves how to live and what kind of governmental system that they will live under?
Sure you do!
But are you sure?
Please, consider the following questions:
Should the federal government be involved in regulating marijuana?
Should the federal government be involved in regulating other drugs?
Should the federal government establish a central bank?
Should the federal government declare anyone an enemy combatant without due process?
Should the federal government regulate marriage: gay or straight?
Should the federal government take either the Pro-Choice or Pro-Life stance on abortions?
Should the federal government regulate guns?
Should the federal government interfere in the health care market?
Should the federal government interfere in education?
If you answered “Yes,” to any of these questions, then on some level you don’t believe in the concept of self-rule. Therefore, you are imposing your values or morals on others who might not share them.Details
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
Yesterday, a bill to nullify TSA overreach moved forward in Kansas. HB 2175 passed out of the Committee on Federal and State Affairs with only 1 recorded NO vote. The bill should now move forward to the floor for a vote by the whole house.
This bill amends the 2012 Kansas statutes. “Official misconduct is any of the following acts committed by a public officer or employee in the officer or employee’s public capacity or under color of the officer or employee’s office or employment.”
Section 7 states, “as part of a determination of whether to grant another person access to a publicly accessible venue or form of transportation, intentionally and without probable cause: (A) Touches the genitals, buttocks, anus or female breasts of such person, including touching through clothing; (B) removes a child younger than 18 years of age from the physical custody or control of such child’s parent or legal guardian, or a person standing in the stead of such child’s parent or legal guardian; (C) commits a violation of subsection (a) or (b) of K.S.A. 2012 Supp.21-5412, and amendments thereto; or (D) harasses, delays, coerces, threatens, intimidates, or denies or conditions such person’s accessibility because of such person’s refusal to consent to subsections (a)(7)(A), (a)(7)(B) or (a)(7)(C).”
This bill will punish any violators. “Upon conviction of official misconduct a public officer or employee shall forfeit such officer or employee’s office or employment. (c) The provisions of subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any use of persons or property which: (1) At the time of the use, is authorized by law or by formal written policy of the governmental entity; or (2) constitutes misuse of public funds.”Details
On February 12, the city council of League City, Texas passed Resolution No. 2013 designed to protect and defend the right to keep and bear arms by a vote of 7 to 1. The resolution was introduced by councilwoman Heidi Thiess and the one opposition vote was casted by councilman Dennis O’Keefe.
The resolution cited from the U.S. Constitution the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments as justification for their resolution. The League City Council also sourced the Texas Constitution, Article I: Section 23a which states, “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state.”
The resolution is also very specific detailing that any law is not made in pursuance of the Constitution is invalid in the State of Texas and will be considered null and void in their city.Details
Oklahoma State Senator Patrick Anderson has introduced a bill that would block implementation of UN “Agenda 21” policies in the state.
SB 23 would amend the Oklahoma Code concerning state and local administration. From the bill’s introduction:
An Act relating to property; prohibiting state and political subdivisions from implementing certain Agenda 21 policies supported by the United Nations; defining term; providing for codification; and providing an effective date.
This bill would nullify the UN’s resolution, “Agenda 21” which is a plan for “sustainable” development worldwide. This plan would make the United Nations stronger and could be a step towards world government. A section from this agenda reads:
Agenda 21 stands as a comprehensive blueprint for action to be taken globally from now into the twenty-first century-by Governments, United Nations organizations, development agencies, non-governmental organizations and independent-sector groups, in every area in which human activity impacts on the environment.
SB 23 has been assigned to the Energy Committee.Details
On January 27, the Houston Chronicle’s front page, banner headline article was called “If at first Texas can’t secede...” written by Patricia Kilday Hart. The article starts off about how the online Texas secession movement has stalled, and then the rest of the article focuses on the nullification bills currently in the Texas Legislature.
This was bad form from the Houston Chronicle. Many left biased news sources have tried to ridicule the various secession movements across the country. Hart used that same ridicule for the secession movements and apply it to the nullification efforts through guilt by association.
Outside of the opening paragraph, there is no mention of succession in the rest of the article. If I’m incorrect, then why use such a misdirecting headline when the significant majority of the article is about the nullification bills at the legislature and not about Texas secession?
The article continues by bringing in their “expert”, South Texas Law Professor Charles Rhodes. He referred to these nullification efforts as “political grandstanding.” Rhodes would continue by saying, “It is eminently clear that, under the Supremacy Clause that was part of our Constitution when the states ratified it, that the federal government is supreme.”
Here is the text of the Supremacy Clause:Details
Oklahoma State Senator Patrick Anderson has introduced a bill that would nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act otherwise known as Obamacare.
SB 93 would amend the Oklahoma Code by adding the following:
The Legislature of the State of Oklahoma declares that the federal laws known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (Public Law 111-148) and the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010” (Public Law 111-152), signed by President Barack Obama on March 23 and 30, 2010, are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers, and are hereby declared to be invalid in the State of Oklahoma, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.
If passed, the law would require the state legislature to take action to prevent implementation of the unconstitutional Affordable Care act within the boundaries of the state:Details