Republican lawmakers in Tennessee introduced a bill last month, called the State Sovereignty Reclamation Act of 2016, that would block state and local officials from enforcing federal executive orders and Supreme Court decisions that represent policies that have not been passed into law by the state’s legislature.
HB 1828, which was introduced by Rep. Mark Pody (R-Lebanon), would prohibit “state and local governments from enforcing, administering, or cooperating with the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any federal executive order or U.S. supreme court opinion unless the general assembly first expressly implements it as the public policy of the state.” The prohibition would apply to the actions of state and local officials and the use of state funds and resources. The Senate version of the bill, SB 1790, was introduced by Sen. Mae Beavers (R-Mt. Juliet).
While the bill would not authorize state and local officials to stop federal officials from enforcing executive orders or Supreme Court decisions, it would prevent state and local officials from participating in their enforcement under the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey, who suggested that some of the policies that would be effectively nullified by the bill “could include federal gun control, environmental regulations and OSHA mandates,” said, “SB1790 rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.”
The New American’s Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. wrote, “[The] Anti-commandeering [doctrine] prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern ‘international and interstate matters.’”
The bill must clear the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House State Government Subcommittee before being voted on by the full Tennessee General Assembly.
Sept. 17, 2015– Nearly 1,000 Tennessee Christians rally for traditional marriage at the state capitol where legislators introduce a bill to nullify the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision.
NASHVILLE, September 17, 2015– On Thursday, almost a thousand conservative Christians gathered at the Tennessee state capitol for a rally today that featured many Republican legislators prepared to fight the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage.
At the rally, State Senator Mae Beavers (R-Mt. Juliet) and State Representative Mark Pody (R-Lebanon) announced legislation calling for Tennessee to defend current state law and the constitutional amendment adopted by voters in 2006 specifying that only a marriage between a man and a woman can be legally recognized in the state. The “Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act” rejects the Obergefell v. Hodges decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in June giving same sex couples the fundamental right to marry and calls on the attorney general and reporter to defend any state or local government official from any lawsuit to the contrary.
House Bill 1412 / Senate Bill 1437 also aims to protect court clerks and ministers who have religious objections to marrying same sex couples from prosecution or civil action.
“This decision defies constitutional authority and is one of the most glaring examples of judicial activism in U.S. Supreme Court history,” said Representative Pody. “It not only tramples on state’s rights, but has paved the way for an all-out assault on the religious freedoms of Christians who disagree with it. This bill calls for Tennessee to stand against such unconstitutional action in hopes that other states will stand with us against an out-of-control court legislating from the bench.”
“Natural marriage between one man and one woman as recognized by the people of this state remains the law, regardless of any court decision to the contrary,” said Senator Beavers. “The Obergefell case is clearly and blatantly an overstep of the Supreme Court’s Authority and it is time that states, like Tennessee, stand up against the judicial tyranny of which Thomas Jefferson so eloquently warned. This legislation deems that any court decision purporting to strike down the state’s definitions of natural marriage, including Obergefell v. Hodges, is void in Tennessee.”
“Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying, ‘Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force,'” said Beavers.
Beavers’ and Pody’s legislation says, “No state or local agency or official shall give force or effect to any court order that has the effect of violating Tennessee’s laws protecting natural marriage.”
It also says, “No state or local agency or official shall levy upon the property or arrest the person of any government official or individual who does not comply with any unlawful court order regarding natural marriage within Tennessee.”
“Our clerks and Tennessee’s clergy need protection to exercise their religious beliefs,” added Beavers. “This law would help protect them from prosecution or civil actions.”
Tennessee’s marriage protection amendment specifying that only a marriage between a man and woman can be legally recognized in the state was approved by 81 percent of voters.
The General Assembly will take up the bill upon convening the 2016 legislative session in January.
Oregon Democratic Governor Kate Brown signed the Oregon Right To Try Act into law last week, thus allowing doctors to prescribe experimental medications and treatments to terminally ill patients. Under the new law, dying patients no longer have to lobby for an exemption from the Food and Drug Administration in order to try medications that are still being tested and have not yet obtained FDA approval.
“People fighting for their lives shouldn’t have to fight the government too. Any person who wants to access a promising investigational treatment when they have exhausted standard treatment protocols should have the right to do that,” said Goldwater Institute president Darcy Olsen in comments to KTVZ-TV.
The Goldwater Institute has been pushing for the enactment of “right to try” laws in states across the U.S. with great success. “To say that Right To Try is sweeping the country may be an understatement. In little more than one year the law has been adopted by 24 states,” said Olsen.
The Chicago Tribune notes that Illinois Republican Governor Bruce Rauner just signed similar legislation into law on August 5.
Oregon joins Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming in enacting a law allowing terminally ill patients to try experimental treatments.
According to PBS, Colorado became the first U.S. state to enact such a law in May of 2014.
Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey praised the sudden rise of “right to try” legislation and criticized FDA policies that complicate terminally ill patients’ ability to try experimental drugs. “FDA regulations that would let somebody die rather than try have got to be some of the most inhumane policies the federal government has ever conceived. Every state should nullify these FDA rules,” said Maharrey.
Twelve additional U.S. states are considering “right to try” bills this year.
Last year, lawmakers in Maine passed a bill which would authorize hemp farming in the state as soon as the federal government lifts its ban on the practice. However, the US Congress has been slow to respond to America’s rising hemp movement and an amendment to the 2014 farm bill signed by President Obama only allows hemp cultivation for research purposes.
On Monday, Maine officially nullified the federal government’s ban on commercial hemp farming in the state when the Maine Senate voted 27-6 to override Republican Governor Paul LePage’s veto of LD4, a GOP-sponsored bill that removes the requirement that farmers obtain federal approval from last year’s hemp farming legalization bill. The Senate vote follows Friday’s veto override effort by the Maine House of Representatives, which passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 135-6.
Governor LePage said in a May 8 statement defending his decision to veto the bill, “I simply cannot support inadvertently putting Maine’s hard working farmers at risk of violating federal criminal laws, which is the practical effect of this bill.” However, lawmakers in the state House and Senate were able to meet the 2/3 vote threshold necessary to override his veto.
Representative Deb Sanderson (R-Chelsea), one of the sponsors of the bill, told the Portland Press Herald, “We have people in this state who are ready to make capital investments – real investments – in this (hemp) industry, capital investments that will create jobs and inject money into this economy. All the pieces are in place with the people behind them, ready to go with the flip of a switch.”
Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin wrote, “An amendment to the bill included an ’emergency clause,’ which bypasses the normal 90-day waiting period for a law to take effect. The bill notes that ‘farmers need adequate time to prepare for their upcoming growing seasons,’ and supporters wanted to make sure the process moved forward immediately.”
Boldin continued, “Since the emergency clause was enacted, the new law goes into effect immediately.While there are some rules that will need to be created by the Department of Agriculture, the sponsors of LD4 expressly included in the measure that all will be ‘routine technical’ rather than ‘major substantive’ rules, and required the commissioner to issue them… Once this process is completed, it will be up to individuals and businesses in Maine to strike the final blow against federal bans on hemp farming. Should courageous farmers start growing industrial hemp without further authorization from Washington DC, the decades long prohibition will be effectively nullified in practice.“
NASHVILLE, February 14, 2015– I’m standing in line at Whole Foods and there is a flurry of men and women swamping the aisles for last minute Valentine’s Day gifts. The scene reminds me of a very important lesson… What do Jesus, Valentine’s Day, the State and Nullification have in common?
While waiting in line to buy overpriced roses and sugar, enjoy a little history lesson:
St. Valentine was Roman Christian priest that lived through the reign of the Emperor Claudias. At the time, Claudias was persecuting the Church and had issued an edict banning the Church from marrying Christians. Valentine repudiated the law and secretly married thousands of Christians. He was eventually caught, tortured for quite some time, and eventually sentenced to death by decapitation.
So, what does St. Valentine teach us about the law and love? At some point, we must decide whether or not to stand for what is right regardless of what the ruling class decides is right. After all, unjust laws are not laws at all. This is especially true for Christians due to the fact that the law of Jesus Christ is soverign. What does that singular law tell us? Love. Love God, and love your neighbor, as you love yourself. We are not told: “Love your State.”
“‘Which commandment is the most important of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The most important is, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” The second is this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” -Mark 12:28–31
The 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution states: “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.”
Those powerful words are exactly what drives the organization, the Tenth Amendment Center, in its fight to return federal authority to its rightful, Constitutionally stated, owners. And, they are hoping that the end of marijuana prohibition is the first stepping stone.
“You have four states, after the last election, openly defying Washington, D.C. by fully legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes even though the feds say you can’t do this,” said Michael Boldin, founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, who recently spoke with BenSwann.com’s Joshua Cook.
Despite the federal government’s positions, the states who are actively trying to legalize marijuana are telling the government that they can have their own position and take their own approach.
“Now we have 2 dozen states taking action on marijuana in one form or another. And it’s expanding year by year to the point where the feds don’t simply have the manpower or the resources to deal with it,” said Boldin.
And budget-wise, it would be impossible for DEA to interfere.
“If the DEA tried to stop the city of Denver’s recreational marijuana market, it would take their DEA’s entire yearly budget to do so,” explained Boldin.
“The fact of the matter is that they’re going to have to simply withdraw,” he added.
According to Boldin, the federal government doesn’t have the Constitutional right to prohibit states from the growing and production of plants.
Boldin said that our Founding Fathers had the foresight to not give the federal government control over things like agriculture.
“But for years, people have allowed the federal government to do what it wants to do,” he said.
“That’s the way government works. They’re always going to find a reason to give themselves more power. And that only stops when the people say, enough is enough.”
“And I think on marijuana, it’s a good example of people saying enough is enough.”
Boldin said that when sweeping decisions are made for a land mass the size of American is when “liberty is lost.”
“The number one step in advancing liberty is to bring the decisions closer to the individual, closer to home, and step one on that is to put it in the hands of the states,” he said.
“The number one goal is the get the federal government out of all of these areas they’re involved in that they shouldn’t be.”
Boldin’s group believes that the federal government is involved in 90 to 95% of things it shouldn’t be.
“They can keep doing the Post Office, and run that into the ground. Virtually everything else, they should be pushed back on,” he said. “It takes active, persistent resistance and disobedience on a state-level to make that happen. And that’s exactly what’s happening with marijuana.”
The group also creates model legislation on a variety of topics, including 2nd Amendment preservation and NSA surveillance.
To listen to Joshua Cook’s full interview with the Tenth Amendment Center’s Michael Boldin, visit here.
Can we ever reclaim liberty from our insidious creature? Decentralization of power is the key, and the feds have known it for quite some time. The Tenth Amendment is salvation. At its core, the mechanism to reclaim our power.
It’s an old clip, but it deserves reintroduction. Listen to Judge Andrew Napolitano on nullification.
WASHINGTON, November 12, 2014–Decorated 20-year Air Force veteran and former firearms instructor at the Sig Sauer Academy, Timothy Arnold, woke up this Veterans Day in federal prison. Arnold was convicted earlier this year in a civilian court in Brunswick, Georgia, of manufacturing firearms and embezzlement—charges Arnold and many of his colleagues openly dispute. Active duty Office of Special Investigations (OSI) agents filed numerous complaints with the Inspector General (IG) regarding lead investigator Wendell Palmer’s “unethical” practices while building the case against Arnold. The information about the affidavits and the pending IG investigation was withheld from the court, in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s Brady doctrine requiring prosecutor Fred Kramer to disclose it. Additionally, the testimony of the defense’s star witness was prevented by unsubstantiated allegations of his contempt of court—testimony the would-be witness claims would have exonerated Arnold.
Thanks to exclusive reports filed earlier on BenSwann, Arnold’s case is receiving national attention and is the subject of an official Congressional Inquiry into its handling. Those with knowledge about the case continue to come forward, outraged that this prosecutorial tragedy happened at all, much less to a man they consistently describe as “honest to a fault” and “full of integrity.”
Tim Arnold served his country for 20 years and executed many top secret missions. Now he serves time in prison.
Before Arnold self-surrendered to the United States Penitentiary that currently holds him, he addressed several mischaracterizations made during the trial. Assistant United States Attorney Kramer accused Arnold of purchasing “stenciled golf balls” and other items “he and his friends thought were cool” using the government-issued credit card. “Yes, I bought golf balls! I also bought custom pins, pens, lighters, coffee cups, and shot glasses with the OSI insignia on them,” Arnold says, “That is what is known as swag. It is customary to give small tokens like these to visiting dignitaries, foreign agents attending training, and those you need to thank while on out-of-country assignments. In keeping with OSI regulations, I turned the swag over to the Commodities Custodian and would then ‘sign it out’ as needed.” Arnold said he was the recipient of such swag from the White Houses of both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. He says small gestures like these are traditional throughout the military.
Kramer accused Arnold of impersonating a law enforcement officer. Arnold says he used the AFOSI-issued badge and credentials provided to him, as he had done for years. He also willingly surrendered the badges to investigators for examination. The prosecution claimed Arnold wore various patches and pretended to be in different branches of the military. “I did wear different shirts depending upon what scenario I set up for my firearms and tactics classes,” Arnold said after the trial. “I never ran around town claiming to be an Army Ranger, a Marine sniper, or anything else.” Another detail not revealed in the trial was that during Arnold’s Air Force career, he was actually part of an elite Air Mobility Command. The jury heard a different story, however. “He’s a poser. He’s a fraud,” Kramer told them. “This is a man with no honor in him.”
Arnold refused to plead guilty to any of the charges during pre-trial negotiations and proceeded with a costly trial in order to clear his name. OSI agents who testified for the defense were shocked that a case with falsified evidence at the hands of who they believe to be an unethical fellow investigator sailed all the way through the legal system. Those who signed affidavits complaining about Palmer’s tactics are currently following up on them via every channel available. The Congressional inquiry is active. Arnold himself expects his record to be expunged once the truth is revealed. His last words before entering prison were, “I have only begun to fight.”
Today, we celebrate the 227th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution! Benswann.com’s Joshua Cook interviewed Jesse Graston, state coordinator of the John Birch Society.
COLUMBIA, May 14, 2014– Yesterday, the South Carolina House gave final approval to a bill which authorizes the growing and production of industrial hemp within the state, effectively nullifying the unconstitutional federal ban.
Introduced by Sen. Kevin Bryant along with cosponsors Sen. Lee Bright and Sen. Tom Davis, S.0839 passed by a 72-28 vote in the House. It has previous passed by a vote of 42-0 in the senate and will now go to Gov. Nikki Haley’s desk for a signature.
The bill reads, in part:
“It is lawful for an individual to cultivate, produce, or otherwise grow industrial hemp in this State to be used for any lawful purpose, including, but not limited to, the manufacture of industrial hemp products, and scientific, agricultural, or other research related to other lawful applications for industrial hemp.”
NASHVILLE, May 15, 2014– Yesterday, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam (R) signed a bill which some supporters consider the strongest pro-hemp legislation in the country. House Bill 2445 (HB2445), introduced by Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby) and Senator Frank Niceley (R-Strawberry Plains) mandates that the state authorize the growing and production of industrial hemp within Tennessee.
The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 28-0 and the House by a vote of 88-5. It reads, in part:
“The department shall issue licenses to persons who apply to the department for a license to grow industrial hemp.”
Mike Maharrey, national communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center, noted that one word strengthened the bill considerably. “By including the word ‘shall’ in this legislation, it has a great deal of impact,” he said. “This means that rather than keeping it open-ended like other states have done, hemp farming will be able to move forward in Tennessee whether the regulatory bureaucrats there want it to or not.”
‘Shall’ is a legal term which creates a specific requirement far stronger than a word like ‘will.’ The former is more closely interchangeable with the word “must,” while the latter allows leeway for the object of the term to delay. In this case, the bill states that the Tennessee department of agriculture will have a mandate to license farmers for growing hemp.
Three other states – Colorado, Oregon and Vermont – have already passed bills to authorize hemp farming, but only in Colorado has the process started. A similar bill was passed in South Carolina this week and awaits action by Gov. Nikki Haley.
Farmers in Colorado started harvesting the plant in 2013, and the state began issuing licenses on March 1, 2014. In Vermont and Oregon, hemp farming was authorized, but no licensing program was mandated, so implementation has been delayed due to regulatory foot-dragging.
With passage of HB2445, Tennessee will most likely become the 2nd state in the country to actively produce hemp. The legislation also ensures that not only will hemp licenses be issued, but the process for doing so will start quickly. It reads:
“The department shall initiate the promulgation of rules … concerning industrial hemp production within one hundred and twenty (120) days of this act becoming law.”
In other words, now that the bill has become law, the process in Tennessee will start no later than November, 2014.
The bill was lobbied for by the Tennessee Hemp Industries Association and the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center.
COLUMBIA, S.C., March 27,2014– The fight to nullify Obamacare in South Carolina continues with a bill introduced in the state House by Rep. Bill Chumley (R) on Tuesday.
The year-long effort to nullify the ACA in the Palmetto State seemed to be dead in the water after parliamentary maneuvering by establishment Republicans in the Senate killed H3101 last week.
H3101 was originally known as the “Obamacare nullification bill” because it declared the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional and void within the state. After significant narrowing, the South Carolina House passed the bill 65-34. But the initiative floundered in the Senate and was carried over to the current legislative session.
Over the summer, H3101 Senate sponsor Senator Tom Davis (R) developed a new strategy for the bill. Instead of relying on a determination of constitutionality and declaring the ACA illegal, he worked with others to craft language based on the well-established anti-commandeering doctrine. The so-called “strike-all” amendment would have replace the full text of the bill, banning the state from participating in the implementation of the main pillars of the federal act.
While passage wouldn’t void the legal status of the federal act, it would be a significant blow to its implementation. Some call it a “nullification in practice.” Judge Andrew Napolitano has said that this action would “gut Obamacare.” James Madison, writing in Federalist #46, said that a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” would create effective roadblocks to stop implementation of federal acts.
Last week, the South Carolina Senate voted down H3101 (33-9) after Republican Lt. Gov. Glenn McConnell ruled every amendment filed on the bill banning the state from enforcing Obamacare ‘not germane’ and refused to allow debate or a vote. He did this knowing that the House version didn’t have the votes to pass.
State Senator Lee Bright (R), the current Tea Party favorite to defeat U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham for his U.S. Senate seat, told BenSwann.com, “I was proud to stand with eight other senators to fight Obamacare in South Carolina.”
Refusing to concede defeat, Chumley and Rep. Bill Davis (R), along with 25 cosponsors, introduced H.4979 with identical language to the Davis amendment.
“If the State Senate can’t block ‘Obamacare’ in South Carolina, we’ll try again in the House of Representatives,” Bill Davis said. “Rep. Bill Chumley and I co-sponsored legislation today identical to Sen. Tom Davis’ Anti-Commandeering amendment. His efforts were rejected by the Senate last week as being out of order while they were debating the ‘Obamacare Nullification’ bill.”
The legislation prohibits the state from implementing or participating in the “establishment of a health insurance exchange,” or expanding Medicaid under the federal Act. It also prohibits the state from taking actions to “assist in the enrollment of any person” in an exchange. It will also specifically target the individual and employer mandates. It prohibits the state from enforcing or even aiding in the enforcement of either section. This includes an express prohibition on the use of any “assets, state funds or funds authorized or allocated by the state to any public body… to engage in any activity that aids in the enforcement of any federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation intended to give effect to or facilitate the enforcement” of those two sections of the ACA. Finally, the bill creates a new “transparency in grants” procedure to make the receipt and use of grant money under the ACA extremely difficult, if not politically impossible.
Sen. Davis reportedly plans to introduce the amendment language as a separate bill in the Senate as well. Activist Jesse Graston says he thinks the strategy could save the legislation because it enjoys widespread support among lawmakers.
“The only reason the Davis amendment did not get a vote was because of the perverse interpretation of the germaneness rule by Lt. Gov. Glenn McConnell, he said. “By having the bills introduced with the exact same language in both the House and Senate, we should have no problem. The fact that the Senate has already debated the Davis amendment for three weeks and was ready to vote for it is massive in the sense that we can justify it’s fast track back onto the Senate floor, because they have already declared their support for it and voted cloture once already.”
LANSING, March 25, 2014 – A bipartisan group of Michigan legislators have introduced a bill, which would ban the state from providing material support to the National Security Agency (NSA). The introduced legislation would also block some immediate practical effects of federal warrantless surveillance programs from within the state.
House Bill 5420 (HB5420), the Fourth Amendment Protection Act, was introduced by Rep. Tom McMillin (R-Rochester) last Thursday to prohibit any state support of the NSA. Cosponsors include five Republicans and five Democrats.
“There is a clear assault by federal government agencies like the NSA on Michigan citizens’ fourth amendment rights,” Rep. McMillin said. “We should do everything we can to stop that assault.”
Michigan joins a host of states including Arizona, California, Tennessee and South Carolina which are considering similar legislation to push back against NSA spying this year.
Practically speaking, HB5420 addresses three areas where the NSA relies on state assistance to continue their programs.
The legislation prohibits the state of Michigan and its subdivisions from providing “material support, participation, or assistance in any form that aids in collecting electronic data or metadata concerning any person, if the collection is not pursuant to a warrant that particularly describes the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.”
Currently, five schools in the state of Michigan have been labeled by the NSA as a “center for academic excellence.” These university partnerships provide critical research that helps the NSA to expand. Continuance of such programs would be banned should HB5420 become law.
Finally, the legislation would ban the state, including local law enforcement, from using in a criminal investigation or prosecution any electronic communications obtained without a warrant “that particularly describes the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.”
While the NSA does not currently operate a data or “threat operations” center in Michigan, Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey said states around the country need to pass similar legislation to make NSA expansion more difficult.
“We know the NSA has aggressively worked to expand its physical locations because it maxed out the Baltimore area power grid in 2006. They’ve built new locations in Utah and Texas, and expanded in several other states,” Maharrey said. “Since the NSA is expanding so wildly, it’s not unlikely that they’re planning to build new data centers and ‘threat operations centers’ in other locations. We can’t wait until the NSA opens up shop. Passage of the Fourth Amendment Protection Act puts the NSA in a pretty tight box, one that we don’t plan to let it out of.”
HB5420 includes criminal charges for state officials that decide to collude with the NSA and aid their spying program. Any state agent or employee who violates the act would commit a “misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days.”
The legislation is based off the long-standing legal principle of the anti-commandeering doctrine, which prohibits the federal government from requiring, or “commandeering” the states to carry out their acts. The Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine in four major cases going back to 1842.
In the Prigg case of 1842, the Supreme Court held that the federal government was not allowed to require the states to help carry out federal slavery laws. The same verdict was reached more recently in Printz v. United States when the Court ruled that states could not be forced to implement federal gun control measures.
HB5420 will first be voted on in the House Judiciary Committee, where it will need to pass before being considered by the full state house.
BOISE, March 21, 2014 – On Thursday, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) signed a bill, which would effectively nullify future federal gun laws, by prohibiting state enforcement of any future federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition.
S1332 passed the house by a vote of 68-0 and the senate by a vote of 34-0. Alaska and Kansas have also passed similar laws.
Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America, cheered the governor’s action. “By signing this nullification bill into law, Idaho has joined an elite class of states that are telling the feds to ‘get lost’ — especially when it comes to unconstitutional gun control infringements”
Introduced by the State Affairs Committee, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, will:
“protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.”
The legislation continued:
any official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency order, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall be paid into the general fund of the state…
S1332 also includes an emergency provision meaning it takes effect immediately upon signature.
Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey considered the legislation a good start. “This is an important first step for Idaho,” he said. “Getting this law passed will ensure that any new plans or executive orders that might be coming our way will not be enforced in Idaho. Then, once this method is established and shown to be effective, legislators can circle back and start doing the same for federal gun control already on the books. SB1332 is an important building block for protecting the 2nd Amendment in Idaho.”
Passage into law represents a giant step forward in protecting the right to keep and bear arms in Idaho. As the law now stands, state and local law enforcement will not cooperate with all future federal firearm laws.
The bill rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce and federal act or program The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. United States serves as the cornerstone.
Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said that the new Idaho law has opened Pandora’s box even wider.
“People are beginning to realize that this practice is completely constitutional and legal. In the near future, you will see a wave of states passing even broader legislation to fight the federal government on everything ranging from more traditionally liberal issues like hemp and marijuana, to more conservative issues like Obamacare.” Boldin continued, “Nullification isn’t a left vs. right issue. It destroys the fallacy of the left right paradigm and is the remedy for all unconstitutional laws.”
COLUMBIA, March 14, 2014– On Thursday afternoon the South Carolina senate sent a bill over to the state house which would authorize the growing and production of industrial hemp within the state, effectively nullifying the unconstitutional federal ban on the same.
Introduced by Sen. Kevin Bryant along with cosponsors Sen. Lee Bright(R) (challenging US Senator Lindsey Graham) and Sen. Tom Davis(R), S.0839 passed by a 42-0 unanimous vote this week.
The bill reads, in part, “It is lawful for an individual to cultivate, produce, or otherwise grow industrial hemp in this State to be used for any lawful purpose, including, but not limited to, the manufacture of industrial hemp products, and scientific, agricultural, or other research related to other lawful applications for industrial hemp.”
Experts suggest that the U.S. market for hemp is around $500 million per year. They count as many as 25,000 uses for industrial hemp, including food, cosmetics, plastics and bio-fuel. The U.S. is currently the world’s #1 importer of hemp fiber for various products, with China and Canada acting as the top two exporters in the world.
This month, President Barack Obama signed a new farm bill into law, which included a provision allowing a handful of states to begin limited research programs growing hemp. The new “hemp amendment”
…allows State Agriculture Departments, colleges and universities to grow hemp, defined as the non-drug oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis, for academic or agricultural research purposes, but it applies only to states where industrial hemp farming is already legal under state law.
Three states – Colorado, Oregon and Vermont – have already passed similar measures. Farmers in SE Colorado started harvesting the plant in 2013, effectively nullifying federal restrictions on such agricultural activities.
S.0839 now moves on to the state house where it will first be assigned to a committee for consideration before the full house has an opportunity to send the bill to Gov. Haley’s desk for a signature.
BOISE, March 13, 2014– Wednesday night the Idaho state House passed a bill which would effectively nullify future federal gun laws by prohibiting state enforcement of any future federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition. The vote was 68-0. It previously passed the state Senate by a vote of 34-0, and will now go to the Governor Otter’s desk for a signature.
Introduced by the State Affairs Committee, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, or SB1332, would
“protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.”
The legislation continued:
“any official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency order, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall be paid into the general fund of the state…”
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has suggested that a single state standing down would make new federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce” within that state.
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” also advised this very tactic. Madison supplied the blueprint for resisting federal power in Federalist 46. He outlined several steps that states can take to effective stop “an unwarrantable measure,” or “even a warrantable measure” of the federal government. Madison called for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a way to successfully thwart federal acts.
SB1332 also includes an emergency provision meaning it takes effect immediately upon passage to the law books.
Notice the “on or after the effective date of this act” clause, because this differentiates SB1332 from other legislation proposed in states such as Arizona and Missouri to resist all federal infringement of the right to bear arms. These bills would end state compliance with all federal firearms laws. The Idaho bill would apply to future acts.
Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey considered the legislation a good start. “This is an important first step for Idaho,” he said. “Getting this law passed will ensure that any new plans or executive orders that might be coming our way will not be enforced in Idaho. Then, once this method is established and shown to be effective, legislators can circle back and start doing the same for federal gun control already on the books. SB1332 is an important building block for protecting the 2nd Amendment in Idaho.”
Passage of the bill would represent a giant step forward in protecting the right to keep and bear arms in Idaho. As it stands now, state and local law enforcement will cooperate with all future firearms laws.
The bill rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce and federal act or program The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
Idaho has a chance to succeed where it did not last year, in limiting the feds’ ability to grab guns.
ATLANTA, Mar. 4, 2014 – Yesterday, the Georgia state House of Representatives passed a bill which bans the state from participating in significant portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). House Bill 707 (HB707), introduced by Rep. Jason Spencer, pushes back against the ACA in five ways. It passed the house in a late-night vote of 115-59.
According to Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin, “While Georgia can’t fully stop Obamacare on its own, it can serve as a pretty major roadblock to implementation,” he said. “And as more states get on board with this strategy, it will pull the rug out from under it. Bills like this will end Obamacare from the bottom up.”
Specifically, HB707:
1. Prohibits any state agencies, departments or political subdivisions from using resources or spending funds to advocate for the expansion of Medicaid. This provision works hand-in-hand with HB990 to make it more difficult to expand Medicaid. HB990 would require legislative approval for expansion of the program, barring the governor from doing it by executive order.
2. Prohibits the state of Georgia from running an insurance exchange.
3. Refuses and federal grant money for the purpose of creating or running a state insurance exchange.
5. Prohibits the Commissioner of Insurance from investigating or enforcing any alleged violation of federal health insurance requirements mandated by Obamacare.
These provisions creates impediments to the implementation and execution of Obamacare in Georgia. We have seen the difficulties created by the number of states simply refusing to set up exchanges. The ACA was predicated on state cooperation. By refusing to help, passage of the bill puts the federal government in an almost impossible position. It never intended to run the healthcare system alone, and ultimately, it can’t do it without state help.
Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed recently, when pointing out that if a number of states were to refuse to participate with the ACA in a wholesale fashion, that multi-state action would “gut Obamacare.”
The provision prohibiting the Georgia insurance commissioner from investigating or enforcing violations of federally mandated health insurance requirements will prove particularly problematic for the feds.
Insurance commissioners serve as the enforcement arm for insurance regulation in the states. The federal government has no enforcement arm. It assumed the state insurance commissioners would enforce all of the provisions of the ACA. So, when people have issues with their mandated coverage, they will have to call the feds.
At this point, it remains unclear who they will even call. Issues the Georgia insurance commissioner will not address include prohibiting a denial of insurance for preexisting conditions, requiring dependent coverage for children up to age 26, and proscribing lifetime or yearly dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits.
“Disputes over these mandates arise under federal, not state law,” HB707 sponsor Rep. Jason Spencer said. “The federal Department of Health and Human Services can be expected to seek to commandeer the machinery of Georgia’s commissioner of insurance to enforce them or to investigate alleged violations because at present there is no federal health insurance agency and Congress is not likely to create one given the substantial opposition to Obamacare.
Under HB707, the feds won’t be able to do that. They’ll have to figure out how to do it themselves.
This provision stands on solid legal ground under the anti-commandeering doctrine. It rests primarily on four SCOTUS cases: Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), New York v. US (1992), Printz v. US (1997) and National Federation of Businesses v. Sebelius. (2012) The Printz case serves the cornerstone. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia asserted that commandeering is incompatible would the constitutional system.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., February 21, 2014– A Missouri bill which seeks to nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books, “whether past, present or future,” passed the Senate Thursday. SB613 would ban the state from enforcing virtually all federal gun control measures, and includes criminal charges for federal agents attempting to violate the right to keep and bear arms in Missouri.
The measure passed 23-10.
SB613 counts as what could be the strongest defense against federal encroachments on the right to keep an bear arms ever considered at the state level. It reads, in part:
All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court 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 I and 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.
Federal acts which would be considered “null and void and of no effect” include, but are not limited to:
(a) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(b) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(c) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(e) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens
The legislation specifically bans all state employees from enforcing or attempting to enforce any acts running counter to the proposed law. Such a tactic is an extremely effective way to stop a federal government busting at the seams. Even the National Governors Association admitted the same recently when they sent out a press release noting that “States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs.”
That means states can create impediments to enforcing and implementing “most federal programs.” On federal gun control measures, Judge Andrew Napolitano suggested that a single state standing down would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce” within that state.
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” advised this very tactic. Madison supplied the blueprint for resisting federal power in Federalist 46. He outlined several steps that states can take to effective stop “an unwarrantable measure,” or “even a warrantable measure” of the federal government. Madison called for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a way to successfully thwart federal acts.
SB613 now moves on to the state House, where it will first need to pass out of committee before the full House can consider it.
State Rep. Matthew Shea (R-Spokane Valley) is the bill’s main sponsor. “This is a phenomenal bill, expanding freedom, allowing jobs to be created – a new market here in Washington state – the potential state economic impact is in the tens of millions if not hundreds of millions,” said Shea.
From the bill:
“This act attempts to reassert this original meaning of the commerce clause over wide areas of policy and effectively nullify federal laws and regulations that violate such limitations by regulating commerce and other activities that are solely intrastate.”
Experts count as many as 25,000 uses for industrial hemp, including food, cosmetics, plastics and bio-fuel. The U.S. currently imports hemp products, primarily from China and Canada.
Last week, President Barack Obama signed a new farm bill into law, which included a provision allowing a handful of states to begin limited research programs growing hemp. The new “hemp amendment”
…allows State Agriculture Departments, colleges and universities to grow hemp, defined as the non-drug oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis, for academic or agricultural research purposes, but it applies only to states where industrial hemp farming is already legal under state law.
Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin weighed in on the Washington state legislature’s move:
“While Pres. Obama and the federal government play games by allowing limited hemp growing for “research,” legislators in Washington State are telling the feds to butt out by moving forward with a bill to allow full scale farming and production of this essential crop,” he said. “Every state should nullify these unconstitutional federal restrictions on industrial hemp.”
Three states – Colorado, Oregon and Vermont – have already passed ssimilar measures. Farmers in SE Colorado started harvesting the plant in 2013 and have essentially ignored the limitations set forth in the new federal Farm Bill.
The Washington State Senate will now take up the bill. A vote is expected within the coming weeks.
SALT LAKE CITY, February 12, 2014–Can Utah shut down the new NSA data center by turning off the water? A new bill introduced by state Rep. Marc Roberts seeks to do just that.
The legislation drafted by a transpartisan coalition organized by the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) called OffNow Coalition. The Utah Fourth Amendment Protection Act would expressly prohibit state material support, participation, and assistance to any federal agency that collects electronic date or metadata without a search warrant “that particularly desribes the person, place and thing to be searched or seized.”
“Without question, the mass surveillance and data collection by the Utah Data Center is a delicate and important matter,” Roberts said. “But for me, the language of the Fourth Amendment is clear. It simply protects us against unreasonable and unwarranted searches or seizures of our persons, private residencies and property, documents and information and personal and private belongings. This legislation preserves those rights to the people.”
This puts contracts that provide the 1.7 million gallons of water a day necessary to cool the NSA computers at its Bluffdale facility in the crosshairs.
Bluffdale, a political subdivision of Utah, provided the NSA with a sweetheart water deal. The bill would begin the process of ending that deal, potentially crippling the NSA’s ability to keep the facility functional.
“No water equals no NSA data center,” TAC executive director Michael Boldin said.
He called the potential impact of this legislation significant, especially compared to what Congress has done to deal with the agency.
“In 1975, Sen. Frank Church warned that the power of the NSA could enable ‘total tyranny.’ He recommended that Congress should limit the agency’s power. Almost four decades later, we’re still waiting. Congress is not going to stop the NSA. The people and their states have to,” Boldin said. “Turn it off.”
BORDC executive director Shahid Buttar echoed Boldin’s enthusiasm for state action.
“At stake is nothing less than our nation’s triumph in the Cold War. The NSA’s decade of warrantless surveillance en masse assaults not only the rights of hundreds of millions of law-abiding Americans, and our democracy as a whole, but resembles Soviet-style spying — on meth, empowered and amplified by the past generation’s remarkable advances in computing technology,” he said. “Utah residents have a chance to take matters into their own hands, defending democracy by shutting off state resources consumed by the Bluffdale data center in its assault on We the People, our fundamental rights, and the Constitution that enshrined them.”
Notable anti-establishment figures such as Naomi Wolf and Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg advise the BORDC.
“The NSA was welcomed by politicians in Utah with a promise that their activities would be “conducted according to constitutional law”. As we all know, that promise has been violated—institutionally, repeatedly, and aggressively,” said Utah Libertas Institute President Conor Boyack. “If Congress and the Courts are unable or unwilling to rein in this beast and put a stop to the rising surveillance state, then it’s up to the states to stake their ground and resist such broad violations of the Constitution. This new bill, along with others like it in over a dozen states, would accomplish that very thing.”
As Boyack points out, Utah doesn’t stand alone. Earlier this week, a group of Maryland legislators introduced a similar bill, targeting water and other resources to NSA headquarters. Lawmakers in more than 10 other states, including California, Vermont and Alaska, have also introduced the legislation. A bill in Tennessee addresses material support and resources to the NSA’s encryption-breaking facility at Oak Ridge.
Boldin said other states need to join the push, even those without NSA facilities. He called it essential.
“If enough states do this in the coming years, the NSA won’t have a place in the country where their spy centers are welcome,” he said.
Other provisions of the Fourth Amendment Protection Act would also have an impact. The bill would make data collected by the NSA and shared with state and local law enforcement in Utah inadmissible in court, unless a specific warrant is issued.
TAC national communications director Mike Maharrey said that this provision might prove as important as cutting off the water, because it erases a practical effect of NSA spying.
“We know the NSA shares data with state and local law enforcement. We know from a Reuters report that most of this shared data has absolutely nothing to do with national security issues,” he said. “This data sharing shoves a dagger into the heart of the Fourth Amendment. This bill would stop that from happening immediately.”
The legislation rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot “commandeer” or coerce states into implementing or enforcing federal acts or regulations – constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. The 1997 case, Printz v. US, serves as the modern cornerstone. The majority opinion deemed commandeering “incompatible with our constitutional system.”
“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
Boldin emphasized this is just the beginning.
“It took the people of Illinois ten years to legalize marijuana for medical use,” he said. “This isn’t going to be easy, and we’re not stopping until we win. The NSA has a choice; follow the constitution or get the hell out.”
