” The state of Texas continues to fight back hard against federal intrusions, especially in the area of gun control as President Obama and some Washington lawmakers push for new laws infringing upon the Second Amendment’s right of Americans to keep and bear arms.
Gun rights advocates in the state have applauded the measure, saying it would serve as a bulwark against future erosions of the Second Amendment within Texas. What’s more, many are pointing to recent comments by Fox News legal analyst and contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano that such widespread noncompliance with new federal gun control statutes would make them “nearly impossible to enforce.”
Tenther News 05-12-13: Two More Nullification Bills Awaiting Signature
Published on May 12, 2013
” This week’s episode is made possible in part by the Tenth Amendment Center membership program. Proudly wear the Tenther label with pride and become a card-carrying member of the TAC. Get all the details at http://members.tenthamendmentcenter.com
*******
In Colorado, the State Senate last week voted to concur with the House on SB13-241, the Hemp Freedom Act. If the bill becomes law, Colorado will nullify unconstitutional federal laws and regulations which ban farmers from growing hemp. 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. It now goes to the Governor’s desk for a signature
Get model legislation, the Hemp Freedom Act, for introduction in your area at tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/hemp
In Missouri, the State House voted to send Governor Jay Nixon what could arguably be the strongest defense against federal gun control measures in American history. The vote was 116-38. HB436, introduced by Representative Doug Funderburk in February, was initially passed by the House in April by a vote of 115-42. The State Senate approved the bill with an amendment which did not change any of its nullification aspects. The vote there was 26-6. The bill then needed one final vote in the house which happened late last week.
The votes in both the House and Senate are by a strong veto-proof majority. Governor Jay Nixon can sign the bill into law, let it become law without signing or have his veto overridden by the legislature. In all three situations, the bill would become law by July 1st, 2013.
As law, HB436 would nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books — or planned for the future. It reads, in part: “
” The South Carolina state House passed a bill Wednesday that declares President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be “null and void,” and criminalizes its implementation.
The state’s Freedom of Health Care Protection Act intends to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.”
” In a May 2 column [Alabama State Senate Embraces Crackpot, Antebellum Legal Theory], Robert Schlesinger relegated the idea of nullification to the historical trash heap. But if James Madison and Thomas Jefferson strolled down the streets of D.C. today, listening to current political discourse, they’d likely declare conventional wisdom holding the federal government supreme in all it does a “crackpot post-antebellum legal theory.”
Even Alexander Hamilton would undoubtedly express shock. After all, he was one of the first Constitution defenders to point out the limits of federal supremacy in Federalist 33.
Thirteen independent sovereign political societies came together to form the United States, delegating specific powers to a general government. Both supporters and opponents of the Constitution agreed the new government was to remain limited. The ratification debate revolved around one question: Would the Constitution create the limited government intended?
When anti-federalists insisted the government wouldn’t remain constrained, Madison countered that the states would serve as a check. In Federalist 46, he wrote that state “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” and “legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions” would serve to “present obstructions.”
” Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter today from Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102, the pro 2nd Amendment law Brownback signed into law last month.
The new law declares that the federal government has no power to regulate guns manufactured, sold and kept only in Kansas.
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
The legislation made it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any law, regulation, order or treaty regulating ammunition made, sold and kept in the state because the federal government does not “interstate commerce” authority over such items.
The law became effective only a week ago, but already Holder has leapt into action, firing off a letter to the governor of Kansas threatening to take “all appropriate action including litigation if necessary” to prevent the state of Kansas from protecting the 2nd Amendment. (Amazing for a guy who didn’t even know about his own department’s gun-running operation, Fast and Furious until months after a border patrol agent was killed by one of its guns.) But when a state passes a law he doesn’t like - this Attorney General is FAST!“
” The bill, which passed with a 115-41 vote, does several key things to protect resident’s gun rights. First, it bans the enforcement of federal gun control regulations within the state’s lines. Second, the bill allows for certain school officials to be armed, provided they have a valid permit and register with the Department of Public Safety. It also allows for the open carry of small firearms, less than 16 inches long. Additionally, the bill drops the legal age requirement to apply for a concealed carry permit from 21 to 19, while still requiring a background check and completion of a firearms safety course. The bill prohibits health professionals from being required to ask people about firearm ownership or documenting that information in medical records. Lastly, the bill makes it illegal to publish any personal information about gun owners or those applying for a concealed carry permit.
“Just days ago, an anniversary passed which should never be forgotten. On April 1, 1942, an order was issued by Lt. General J.L. DeWitt which began the forced evacuation and “internment” of people of Japanese descent.
In the following three years, over 100,000 people, including US citizens, were “indefinitely detained” based solely on their racial (Japanese) background. This supposedly made them a threat to national security. Thousands of people of German and Italian descent got the same treatment.
Many lost everything. A few years later, when the federal government offered to pay claims for lost property, the average payout was a paltry $1392.
Much has been written about the horrors of internment during those years, so let’s not belabor the point. But today, when the federal government assumes some new power, those who point out how that power could very-well be abused in fantastic ways are often told, “That won’t happen here!”
April 1st should be a reminder to all of us. It already did happen here.
Unfortunately, the federal government has granted itself similar “indefinite detention” powers today. But the People have an opportunity to learn from history, and do something about it.
In states around the country, legislation is being considered which would severely hamper or even fully block any attempt to arrest and detain people without due process. In Michigan, Montana, Texas and California, votes are coming up soon to move such bills forward.
In December 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which gave the federal government the power to “indefinitely detain” people, including US citizens. No due process. No access to lawyers. And those who are detained have no idea if they’ll ever be set free.
This is the same kind of power which resulted in mass internment 71 years ago. In 1942, FDR exercised the power via executive order. The ACLU notes that the NDAA codified indefinite military detention into law for the first time in American history. ”
” Our own Ignorance is destroying us. Mark Twain wrote in his autobiography:
“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
That is what has been going on in our Country for a very long time. Our “intellectuals” can’t think; our “scholars” parrot each other; the self-educated fixate on idiotic theories; no one studies original source writings; and The People jump on every bandwagon that rolls by.
In order to write intelligently on our Constitution, one needs to have studied and understood the original source writings of our Framers. No matter what your educational level, if you don’t know what is in our Declaration of Independence and federal Constitution; and if you are not familiar from personal study with The Federalist Papers, The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800), and Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1834), among other original source writings, then you have no business writing about these issues. “
Colorado Sheriff Cooke: There Is No Doubt In My Mind That I’m Not Going to Enforce These Laws
” Published on Mar 19, 2013
Last week Colorado Sheriff John Cooke told reporters he would not enforce the new Democratic gun control laws.
Tonight Sheriff Cooke was on with Greta Van Susteren to discuss his comments.
“It’s an infringement of our rights. It’s not just the US Constitution but our state constitution… Plus, they are knee-jerk reactions, feel good bills to a tragedy and they’re not going to do anything for public safety and law enforcement. They are totally unenforceable… People down at the capitol, and I’m assuming the governor, are not happy with me for taking this stance. I believe there are a large number of sheriffs that are standing with me… I know there are several sheriffs that are going to do the same things I am and are not going to enforce these bills… There is absolutely no doubt in my mind I am not going to enforce these laws.” “
Tenther News 03-17-13: The Nullification Movement Goes Local
” Last week in Southwest Utah, the Iron County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously in passing an Iron County 2nd Amendment Protection Resolution. This is the second Resolution passed in the county, the first being the Cedar City 2nd Amendment Resolution passed by the City Council in February.
The Resolution makes it clear that the county does not recognize any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, executive orders, or regulations that violate the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. It also requires the sheriff to take a stand to protect the right to keep and bear arms. It reads, in part:
“it shall be the duty of the Sheriff of Iron County to take all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
Iron County Sheriff Mark Gower is fully on board with the resolution. He said, “I will not allow anyone to come into this county and violate the Constitutions of the United States or Utah. If I have to stand in the street and stop that from happening I would do it.” He further said, “I have refused to sign any agreements or contracts with Homeland Security or any other federal department and no one can come in and preempt the local control of our law enforcement. The US Constitution will not be violated on my watch.”
In Maine, the town of Millinocket also passed a 2nd Amendment resolution last week. Town Councilors Jimmy Busque and Michelle Anderson both explained the importance of this Resolution to those present. Busque explained the importance of the resolution and why its passage was required, followed by Anderson discussing the history of nullification. The resolution passed by a vote of 5-2.
A similar resolution is being considered on Monday night in Upper Pottsgrove, Pennsylvania. It would 1) Condemn federal overreach and infringement upon the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms; 2) Express support for, and urge immediate passage of PA House Bill 357 and 3) Reserve the right of the Township to take measures necessary to prevent enforcement of federal acts regarding the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms.
Also in Maine, the town of Brooksville held a public referendum in support of a Food Freedom Ordinance, which nullifies unconstitutional overreach from the FDA. The ordinance exempts “producers and processors” of local foods in town from state and federal licensure and inspection, so long as they leave the middleman out and sell their produce, baked goods, dairy and meat directly to customers. It passed by a vote of 112-64.”
” On March 12 and 14, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed both Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-NY) “Fix Gun Checks Act,” which would criminalize all private firearm sales and Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) “Assault Weapons Ban.”
These bills have a long way to go before they become law – if they ever do – but states across the nation are introducing their own legislation to preemptively defeat any new federal gun laws.
In Ohio, two senators have introduced SB36, which would prohibit firearms seizures, registration and bans in their state.
Sen. Jared Carpenter introduced a bill that would prohibit Kentucky from enforcing new federal gun control laws if they’re enacted. The measure passed by a vote of 34-3.”
” After a vote of 28-21 in the state Senate on Wednesday, March 13, Montana is moving toward being the first state in the country to approve a bill prohibiting the enforcement of a potential federal ban on semiautomatic firearms and large-capacity magazines within its borders. The bill, HB 302, also calls for criminal penalties for any employee, official, or officer of either the state or federal government who enforces such a measure within Montana.
House Bill 302, the “Montana Federal Semiautomatic Firearm and Large Magazine Ban Enforcement Prohibition Act,” passed the state House 56-42 on February 22. Because the original bill was amended by the Senate Judiciary Committee, both legislative chambers need to reconcile the two versions of the bill.
Montana’s nullification efforts against gun control are not without historical precedent. Historian Thomas Woods has written an excellent brief history of state nullification of federal laws in his article, “The States’ Rights Tradition Nobody Knows.” In recent years, dozens of states have introduced nullification-type legislation to stop Real ID, affirm the Tenth Amendment, reject a federal mandate to buy healthcare insurance, and to reject federal firearm laws for guns manufactured, sold, and used intrastate (known as Firearms Freedom Acts or FFA). Not just in Montana, but all across the country, sheriffs and legislators are acting to nullify proposed federal gun controls.
The total number of states that have introduced pro-Second Amendment nullification bills in their state legislatures currently stands at 32. These states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.”
A thorough , detailed and link-filled post on why nullification is not only feasible but our right . Very much worth your time .
” Nullification deniers such as Matthew Spalding of Heritage Foundation, Jarrett Stepman of Human Events, law professor Randy Barnett, David Barton of Wallbuilders, and history professor Allen C. Guelzo, say that nullification by States of unconstitutional acts of the federal government is unlawful and impossible. They make the demonstrably false assertions that:
States don’t have the right to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government because our Constitution doesn’t say they can do it;
Nullification is literally impossible;
The supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not; and The States and The People must submit to whatever the supreme Court says; and
James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, opposed nullification.
Their assertions contradict our Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, our federal Constitution, and what James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton really said.
What are the Two Conditions Precedent for Nullification?
The deniers seem unaware of the two conditions our Framers saw must be present before nullification is proper and possible. These conditions are important – you will see why!:
The act of the federal government must be unconstitutional – usually a usurpation of a power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; and
The act must be something The States or The People can “nullify”- i.e., refuse to obey: the act mustorder themto do somethingor not do something.
What is “Interposition” and What is “Nullification”? “
” In The United States, there is NO entity vested with absolute power. The Supremacy Clause does not mean that states are bound by any law that the Congress wants to pass, as simple-minded pop-culture voices imply. It means that states are bound to the principles of The Constitution and the enumerated powers of the federal government. “
” In the nullification movement, there are varying degrees and methods of nullifying certain federal acts. One who has been with the movement a while could forget and hyper focus on one, leaving someone new to the movement to think of nullification as a very narrow spectrum.
To eliminate that thinking, it is good to go back to the Tenth Amendment Center’s definition of nullification, which is: “any act, or set of actions, that results in a particular law being declared unconstitutional and rendered null, void or even just unenforceable…”
There are so many opinions on nullification, if I listed every article and opinion piece written on it in the past week, I’d probably be finished with this entry sometime around next Christmas. This is not a bad thing. If others are talking about it, it means the message is being heard and cannot be ignored.
This is intended to be a general review, so while there is a time for everything under the sun, there is no time to include links and sources today, just a quick refresher. There is, however, a time when a certain forms of nullification may be more applicable than others.
LEGISLATIVE NULLIFICATION
The most commonly discussed type of nullification at the Tenth Amendment Center is legislative nullification. This is when a State or local government passes a law refusing to comply with a federal action. In the most forceful cases, this even includes arrest and jail time for federal agents attempting to enforce said federal act.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have nonbinding resolutions warning the federal government that a certain act is unconstitutional and/or unjust, much like a cease and desist letter. While not outright nullification, these resolutions “till the soil” so to speak, setting the stage for future action.
Legislative nullification can be very useful when used at the right time, such as opposing REAL ID, but can also be abused in rare cases, such as during the period of segregation (more about combating that later). The stronger bills, which would fall under the category of interposition, could lead to armed conflicts between state and federal officials, so courage and prudence should be carefully balanced when deciding how far a nullification bill should go.
Too little, and the legislature will either wind up having to draft a bill for stronger measures. Too much, and conflict gets created where it needn’t be.
Other Types Of Nullification Explored In The Article Include :
EXECUTIVE NULLIFICATION
SHERIFF NULLIFICATION
JURY NULLIFICATION
INDIVIDUAL/GROUP NULLIFICATION
Read The Whole Thing . We Have Some Alternatives Besides The Sword . Familiarize Yourself With Our Legal System As We Prepare To Do Battle To Save Our Beloved Constitution .
A BROADER DISCUSSION
When we open our thought processes, and we allow for a broader discussion of nullification, it’s easy to see we don’t just have one hammer with which to try to fix every problem in our broken system. We have a massive toolkit at our disposal, with a movement consisting of individuals and groups with a very general surface knowledge, specialists in specific areas, and people who have an in depth knowledge of many or all areas of nullification.
The vehicle of liberty is broken and waiting in the shop. Let’s get everyone working on it, perhaps in different ways, but with the same goal in mind, complete and total restoration.”
” What Is It? State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.
Says Who? Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.
But Jefferson didn’t invent the idea. Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Patrick Henry and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.
What’s the Argument for It? Here’s an extremely basic summary:
1) The states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of 13 states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. “
” A movement to stop unconstitutional violations of gun rights by refusing to enforce unjust laws is slowly gaining momentum.
Last week, we saw the positive news of a small town Chief of Police in Pennsylvania who is proposing an ordinance to ‘preserve the 2nd Amendment’ and nullify any and all policies or attempts at enforcement from the federal, state or local level that violate the right to keep and bear arms.
Now, as predicted, others are modeling legislation on this same, or at least similar, grounds.
Members of Wyoming’s state government are introducing bills to uphold the 2nd Amendment as well. K2Radio.com reports:
Several Wyoming lawmakers are proposing legislation designed to protect gun-owners from any potential federal firearm ban. The “Firearms Protection Act” bill, introduced this week, would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries. “
Mike Maharreyon the origins of the Republican party and it’s integral association with state’s rights and nullification .
Remember who fought to end slavery (republicans) and who fought to deny equal rights to the black man based on the color of his skin (democrats).
And remember that the democrats efforts to combat equal rights continued for over a century after the slaves were freed .
Bull Conner , George Wallace and Robert (grand kleagle) Byrd were democrats after all .
Mr . Maharrey demonstrates the utility of the nullification process in asserting the sovereignty of the states and how that power can be put to work in ending the threat to individual liberty that is Obamacare .
” The Republican Party grew from the soil of state sovereignty and nullification. Now is the time for
Republicans to rediscover those roots and support state nullification of the federal health
care act.”
