Category Archives: 10th Amendment
Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Ban UN Agenda 21
by Alex Newman, The New American via Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Following Alabama’s lead, lawmakers in the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to approve popular legislation protecting private-property rights and banning a controversial United Nations “sustainable development” scheme known as Agenda 21, which critics say represents a serious threat to American values and liberty. If approved by the Senate as expected, the law would also prohibit state and local governments from working with the UN or its affiliates to implement any sort of “international law” that violates the U.S. or Oklahoma constitutions.
The bill, H.B. 1412, was passed in the state House last week on a bipartisan vote, with a Republican-led coalition of 67 supporting the legislation against 17 Democrats who opposed the measure. It originally passed out of the States’ Rights Committee in late February and is now in the state Senate, where a broad coalition of activists — supporters of national sovereignty, private property, the Constitution, individual liberty, Tea Party groups, and more — is working to ensure its passage.
Of course, Oklahoma is just the latest state to take action against the highly controversial UN plan, which calls for a transformation of human civilization under the guise of promoting so-called “sustainability.” In May of last year, Alabama became the first state to officially ban UN Agenda 21 after a law to protect private property and due process rights was signed by Gov. Robert Bentley. The wildly popular bi-partisan legislation was approved unanimously in both houses of the state legislature.
Before that, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Tennessee adopted a resolution blasting the dubious UN agenda as a radical “socialist” plot at odds with individual liberty, private-property rights, and the U.S. Constitution. Lawmakers in Kansas followed suit. Numerous other state governments, under heavy pressure from activists across the political spectrum, are also working to ban the “sustainable development” scheme in their jurisdictions. City and county governments, meanwhile, are taking action to protect residents, too.
In Oklahoma, lawmakers said legislation was needed to defend citizens and their rights from the UN scheme as well. Despite having never been ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by the Constitution, supporters of the bill explained, officials at all levels — especially the federal executive branch, mostly using unconstitutional “grants” and decrees — have been quietly working to implement the controversial 1992 international agreement across America.
“House Bill 1412 is a short little bill, barely two pages long; it deals with a big topic though, protecting personal property rights,” noted Republican Rep. Sally Kern, who sponsored the legislation in the Oklahoma House.
Related articles
- Oklahoma Bill Would Nullify Agenda 21 (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Alabama & Oklahoma Ban NWO Agenda 21 Banking Scheme: States At War With Their Over Taken Federal Corporation! (politicalvelcraft.org)
- Oklahoma House Passes Obamacare Nullification Bill (godfatherpolitics.com)
3 State Houses vote to Nullify Federal Gun “Laws”
Alaska House Passes 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, 31-5
by Kelli Sladick via Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Today, February 25th, Alaska’s Second Amendment Preservation Act, HB69, has passed the State House and will now move on to the Senate for concurrence.
On the 20th of February, HB69 was read during the House Judicial Committee meeting where it was then scheduled for a hearing that was held today. During that hearing meeting, the bill was read for a second reading where the committee unanimously consented to the bills adoption. It was then considered by the full house. The vote was 31-5.
HB69 states, in part: “A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is possessed in this state or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce as those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.” [emphasis added]
The bill continues, “The authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition possessed in this state or made in this state from those materials. Firearm accessories that are imported into this state from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in this state.”
Will Montana Nullify Federal Gun Laws?
by TAC Daily Updates
via Tenth Amendment Center Blog
As sheriffs around the country get more and more media attention for making statements that they will not comply with or enforce federal gun control schemes, the Montana State house – and a number of others – is taking things a step further.
House Bill 302 was introduced last month by State Representative Krayton Kerns. If passed, it would be another line of defense for the right to keep and bear arms in the State of Montana. Instead of Montana residents having to rely on the goodness, courage, and constitutional understanding of their own local Sheriff – HB302 would make it state law that no state agent, agency or peace officer working in the state of Montana would be allowed to enforce such violations of the 2nd Amendment.
The bill states, in part:
A peace officer, state employee, or employee of any political subdivision is prohibited from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines and is also prohibited from participating in any federal enforcement action implementing a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines.
In Wyoming, recently, the state house passed a similar law prohibiting such federal bans. That bill also included criminal charges for federal agents who attempt to enforce the ban. Both bills play a big part in nullifying unconstitutional federal acts regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
Will Kentucky Nullify New Federal Gun Restrictions?
by TAC Daily Updates via Tenth Amendment Center Blog
The Kentucky state Senate on Monday overwhelmingly passed a nullification bill (SB129) that would prohibit Kentucky from enforcing new federal gun control laws if they’re enacted.
The vote was 34-3. Three of the Senate’s 14 Democrats voted no, stating that the measure would be trumped by the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
What opponents are missing, however, is the fact that the federal government itself acknowledges that it has NO constitutional authority to force a state to enforce its laws. It often resorts to funding “bribes” to encourage compliance, but it cannot force it. This was upheld by the supreme court multiple times – most notably in the 1997 Printz case and in last Summer’s Obamacare ruling.
The is ZERO serious discussion that the federal government can require the state of Kentucky – or any other state – to enforce its laws.
Sen. Jared Carpenter, a Berea Republican, sponsored the bill. He said the Supremacy Clause applies only if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, which he said wouldn’t apply to stricter gun measures.
“If I thought the bill would be symbolic, I would’ve written a resolution,” Carpenter told the Associated Press. “I thought it needed more than that.”
The one-page bill deems unenforceable federal bans on gun ownership and registration. It specifically mentions semiautomatic firearms and their magazines.
The bill applies to federal laws as well as federal rules, regulations and orders.
Track all nullification legislation here:
Related articles
- Will Kentucky Nullify New Federal Gun Restrictions? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Will Montana Nullify Federal Gun Laws? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Two Bills Would Nullify Federal Gun Laws and Regulations in Idaho (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws (godgutsandoldglory.wordpress.com)
- All Federal Gun Laws Are Unconstitutional (realnewsworldwide.com)
- 3 More States Propose Bills to Resist Federal Gun Control (secretsofthefed.com)
- 3 More States Propose Bills to Resist Federal Gun Control (activistpost.com)
White House defends drone-war killing of Americans
Via Yahoo! News
The Drone Ranger strikes again!
The White House on Tuesday defended targeted assassinations of Americans thought to consort overseas with terrorists as “necessary,” “ethical” and “wise,” as the Obama administration faced fresh questions about its sharply expanded drone war.
“We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats—to stop plots, prevent future attacks and, again, save American lives,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. “These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise.”
Carney’s comments came after NBC News published a Justice Department memo that lays out a broad rationale for targeting individual Americans anywhere outside the U.S. for assassination—without oversight from Congress or the courts, and even if the U.S. citizen in question is not actively plotting a specific terrorist attack.
[...]
“Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of self-defense,” the document asserts.
“Imminent threat”? That seems reasonable and is a traditional standard for military action. Except, as NBC investigative reporter Michael Isikoff notes, the memo adds that “the condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
Instead, that previously mentioned “high-level official” can determine that the potential target was “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of an attack and that “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.”
Isikoff notes the memo does not define “activities” or “recently,” leaving that up to the administration to determine on a case-by-case basis.
Related articles
- White House: drone strikes are legal, ethical, wise (dailystar.com.lb)
- Do You Agree With White House that Drone Strokes are “Legal,” “Ethical,” and “Wise”? You Shouldn’t. (reason.com)
- DOJ memo justifies drone kills of U.S. citizens abroad (anirrationalviewoftheirrational.wordpress.com)
- Drone Strikes on US Terror Suspects ‘Legal,’ ‘Ethical,’ ‘Wise,’ White House Says (abcnews.go.com)
- White House, Congress square off over Justice Dept. rules for drone strikes (thehill.com)
- ‘Judge, jury and executioner’: Legal experts fear implications of White House drone memo (usnews.nbcnews.com)
- Memo shows how Obama decides to uses drones on Americans (news.yahoo.com)
Texas, Missouri Join Other States Looking To Block Gun Bans
by Mike Maharrey via Texas, Missouri Join Other States Looking To Block Gun Bans – Tenth Amendment Center
States have opportunity to say ‘No!’ to gun grabs
On the same day President Obama called for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, a Texas legislator filed a bill asserting, “Not in my state!”
On Wednesday, the Lone Star State joined five other states already considering legislation that would block enforcement federal firearms acts in violation of the Second Amendment.
Texas Rep. John Otto (R-Dayton) announced the filing of HB553 on Wednesday morning. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for any state or federal official to “enforce or attempt to enforce any acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, rules or regulations of any kind whatsoever of the United States government relating to confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore.”
“The Second Amendment won’t enforce itself,” Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey said. “The Bill of Rights is nothing but a piece of parchment without some power behind it stepping in and holding the federal government in check. James Madison said when the feds pass an unwarrantable measure, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. He was referring to the state governments. Texas has the opportunity to do just what the founders intended, interpose and resist an out of control federal government and protect the most basic rights of its citizens.”
Texas doesn’t stand alone in the fight.
MORE . . .
Related articles
- Texas, Missouri Join Other States Looking To Block Gun Bans (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Missouri Gun Bill Would Jail Feds for Violating 2nd Amendment (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- States pulling rug from under Obama gun plans (wnd.com)
- Missouri Bill Proposes Jail Time for Feds Violating the 2nd Amendment (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Feinstein Rolls Out Draconian Attack on Second Amendment (dprogram.net)
TSA Pulls Plug on Airport Nude Body Scanners
via Wired.com
Automated Target Recognition software produces generic outlines of passengers instead of virtual nude images.
The Transportation Security Administration is pulling the plug on its nude body scanner program, a decision announced Friday that closes the door to a tumultuous privacy battle with the public scoring a rare victory.
Travelers will continue to go through one of two types of scanners already deployed, but images of naked bodies will no longer be produced. Instead, software will instead show a generic outline of a person.
What the TSA sees using millimeter wave technology without Automated Target Recognition software
First tested in 2007, the advanced imaging technology scanners became the object of intense media and public scrutiny around Thanksgiving in 2010. In addition to privacy concerns, some experts maintained the scanners’ safety was unproven, and that the technology was ineffective in detecting smuggled weapons and explosives. Travelers are permitted to opt-out of the scan, but are then subjected to an aggressive pat-down procedure.
The government said Friday it is abandoning its deployment of so-called backscatter technology machines produced by Rapiscan because the company could not meet deadlines to switch to generic imaging with so-called Automated Target Recognition software, the TSA said. Instead, the TSA will continue to use and deploy more millimeter wave technology scanners produced by L-3 Communications, which has adopted the generic-outline standard.
“Due to its inability to deploy non-imaging Automated Target Recognition (ATR) software by the Congressionally-mandated June 2013 deadline, TSA has terminated part of its contract with Rapiscan,” the TSA said in a statement to Wired. “By June 2013 travelers will only see machines which have ATR that allow for faster throughput.”
What the TSA sees using backscatter technology without Automated Target Recognition software
The announcement comes three months after Rapiscan came under suspicion for possibly manipulating tests on the privacy software designed to prevent the machines from producing graphic body images. The TSA sent a letter in November to the parent company of Rapiscan, the maker of the so-called backscatter machines, requesting information about the testing of the software to determine if there was malfeasance.
MORE . . .
Related articles
- TSA pulls the plug on ‘naked’ x-ray scanners after maker fails to guarantee privacy (theverge.com)
- TSA to remove controversial X-ray scanners (miamiherald.com)
- TSA to Remove Naked-Image Scanners From US Airports (gizmodo.com)
- Naked-Image Scanners to Be Removed From U.S. Airports (bloomberg.com)
- The TSA Has Ended Its Contract With Airport Scanner Maker Rapiscan (theatlantic.com)
State by State, A Nullification Domino Effect
by Joel Poindexter via Tenth Amendment Center
Throughout the Cold War the prevailing fear of United States government was the domino effect. Simply put, if even one country fell to communism, it could start a chain reaction that would quickly consume the remainder of the free world in a totalitarian dragnet. This led to a doctrine of containment, wherein the U.S. government would intervene in virtually any country, by any means necessary, to prevent the transition to a communist system. There were full-scale wars in Korea and Vietnam, coups in Guatemala, Iran, and the Republic of Congo, and a host of other clandestine operations meant to undermine Soviet influence around the world.
In much the same way, the U.S. government has been engaging in a doctrine of containment – or at least they’ve been trying – for the better part of four decades regarding the drugs. They’ve militarized state and local police forces, launched full-scale military operations, and employed the U.S. Coast Guard to combat drugs. They capture drug dealers in sting operations, prosecute young and old alike, and have jailed millions of non-violent individuals, all in an effort to stamp out freedom of choice and rights to private property.
The first indicator that some of the dominos were going to fall happened during the 1990s, when people began buying and selling marijuana for medicinal use. Starting with California in 1996, a number of states even partially decriminalized the banned plant when they realized that containment would be ineffective. Over the course of the next decade eighteen states and the District of Columbia passed legislation that meant medical marijuana users would be left alone. That is to say the state governments wouldn’t harass users, but the Feds kept up the pressure, and continued with their futile attempt to control that sector of the economy.
And then the people of two states, Colorado and Washington, decided to up the ante. Earlier this month they passed legislation that would allow pot smokers to freely use marijuana without the threat of kidnapping and prosecution from state bureaucrats. Almost overnight prosecutors in Colorado and Washington began dropping cases that solely involved possession charges.
MORE . . .
Related articles
- State by State, A Nullification Domino Effect (txwclp.org)
- State by State, A Nullification Domino Effect (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- A Simple Constitutional Argument For Letting States Legalize Marijuana (businessinsider.com)
Rick Perry Joins List of Governors Saying ‘No’ to State Health Exchanges
Posted by Matthew Renquist via Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Governor Rick Perry has said there will be no state health exchanges in Texas. In a letter to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, Perry made his intentions very clear.
“Our state will not be a party to helping facilitate the taxation of millions of Texans, at an unknown cost, to implement bad public policy.”
Although a state rejecting to set up exchanges does not nullify the unconstitutional federal mandate, it is a start in eliminating the Affordable Care Act. The law only appropriates funds for the exchanges, if it is created by the state.
As Michael Maharrey, Communications Director, of the Tenth Amendment Center said, “This is a good first step. The feds depend on state cooperation to make these huge programs work. If a large number of states refuse to set these exchanges up, it puts and increasing burden on the federal bureaucracy, one I’m not convinced they are really prepared to deal with. It will definitely gum up to works, and it sets the stage for more aggressive state action to block implementation of this unconstitutional act.”
If you are interested in learning more about state healthcare nullification, click here.
Matt Renquist is a blogger for the Tenth Amendment Center. He believes in the principles of the Tenth Amendment, and a limited federal government. Matt holds a Bachelor’s Degree from Colorado State University.
Also See:
- Indiana governor-elect says ‘No!’ to health insurance exchanges – Tenth Amendment Center Blog.
- Alaska governor refuses to commit to state insurance exchange – Tenth Amendment Center Blog.
- Nebraska governor on health insurance exchanges: nope – Tenth Amendment Center Blog.
- S.C. Governor Haley says no to health exchanges – Tenth Amendment Center Blog.
- A chat with the Ohio governor’s office on health care nullification – Tenth Amendment Center Blog.
- States Decide on Obamacare Exchanges – Tenth Amendment Center Blog.
Related articles
- Do the Secessionists Have As Much Courage As the Nullifiers? (rubinoworld.com)
- Michigan Nullifying the NDAA: A Work in Progress (rubinoworld.com)
- States Considering Nullification (rubinoworld.com)
- Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents (rubinoworld.com)
- Will Texas Nullify Both NDAA and TSA? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Will Texas Nullify Both NDAA and TSA? (rubinoworld.com)
- Rick Perry Joins List of Governors Saying ‘No’ to State Health Exchanges (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Alaska governor refuses to commit to state insurance exchange (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
Glenn Beck on NDAA: Nullify!
The Texas legislature will take up two bills designed to protect basic civil liberties in the Lone Star State during the 2013 legislative session.
via Glenn Beck discusses Nullification of ANTI-Constitutional NDAA – YouTube.
Do the Secessionists Have As Much Courage As the Nullifiers?
by Benjamin W. Mankowski, Sr. via Tenth Amendment Center Blog
By now, anybody who even casually follows the Tenther movement and the liberty movement in general has likely heard about the secession petitions circulating. Yesterday, I had personally gone from only hearing about Louisiana, to hearing my State of New Jersey had one too, to hearing the count was up to twenty States. That could be an old number by the time this makes it into the Tenth Amendment Center blog.
The language of these petitions is interesting, as they “ask” the federal government to let said States peaceably withdraw from the United States. Although I confess to having signed, originally for Louisiana upon first finding out, and then for New Jersey, it was more out of curiosity than anything else.
Apparently, any State circulating these petitions requires a minimum of 25,000 signatures within thirty days in order to receive a White House response. Texas has nearly double the required signatures, and Louisiana is likely a day away from hitting the threshold. Several states are beyond halfway there. Check to see if your State is on the list. While you’re at it, go ahead and sign, so you can get your response. The most likely response from the White House is a familiar word to anybody in the nullification movement, “No.”
Meanwhile, throughout the United States, two States legalized marijuana, this Election Day, not just for medicinal use, but for general use. Others nullified the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, or in New Jersey as PalloneCare. Governors in other States have stated flat out they will not implement the ACA. They are not asking permission to opt out. They are not asking the federal government to refrain from enforcing it in their State. They are telling D.C. how it will be. Whether or not their State remains in the union, they are going to do things their way.
Back to secession.
MORE . . .
Related articles
- Three and Counting: Another State Considers Obamacare Nullification (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
Will Texas Nullify Both NDAA and TSA?
For Immediate Release: November 13, 2012
The Texas legislature will take up two bills designed to protect basic civil liberties in the Lone Star State during the 2013 legislative session.
On Monday morning, Rep. David Simpson (R-Longwood) prefiled The Texas Travel Freedom Act (House Bill 80). If passed, the law would make it a criminal act to intentionally touch “the anus, breast, buttocks, or sexual organ of the other person, including touching through clothing,” without probable cause in the process of determining whether to grant someone access to a public venue or means of public transportation.
The measure also forbids removing a child younger than 18 years of age from the physical custody or control of a parent or guardian. The act would put an end to the most intrusive pat-down searches conducted by the TSA.
“If you walk up to somebody and grab their crotch out on the street, it will land you in jail. Blue uniforms and federal badges don’t grant some goon the power to sexually assault you, or at least they shouldn’t. A person doesn’t forfeit her or his personal dignity or Fourth Amendment protections with the purchase of an airline ticket,” Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey said.
The Texas legislature will also consider a bill that would block any attempt to indefinitely detain people in Texas under sections of the National Defense Authorization Act.
MORE . . .
Related articles
- Will Texas Nullify Both NDAA and TSA? (txwclp.org)
- Will Texas Nullify Both NDAA and TSA? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Rematch: Texas takes on the TSA Again (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Michigan Nullifying the NDAA: A Work in Progress (rubinoworld.com)
- Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents
by Michael Boldin via Tenth Amendment Center Blog
At the close of 2011, Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for the year 2012. In it are what some constitutional experts consider to be some of the greatest constitutional violations in American history. At issue are sections 1021 and 1022 which, in essence, create a new power for the federal government to “indefinitely detain” – without due process – any person. Indefinitely. That’s little different than kidnapping.
In response, there’s been a bit of a firestorm from people across the political spectrum. Local communities in Colorado sent out the first warning shots, passing resolutions and ordinances rejecting such power earlier this year. Then, at the close of the 2012 state legislative session, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed House Bill 1160, making that state the first to paw a law not only rejecting the federal act, but fully banning any state agency from cooperating with the feds on it.
Currently, more than 15 local communities have done the same. Michigan is also considering a bill that is similar to Virginia’s. And today, Texas State Representative Lyle Larson introduced House Bill 149 (HB149), the Texas Liberty Preservation Act. This might be the strongest anti-NDAA bill introduced yet.
It states, in part:
Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81) violate portions of federal law, the United States Constitution, and the Texas Constitution and, as such, are invalid and illegal in this state.
It also, like Virginia’s law, requires full noncompliance with the federal act:
It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81). Any act to enforce or attempt to enforce those laws is in violation of this subchapter.
But, the Texas legislation takes it a step further, codifying into State law criminal penalties for violation of the act by even federal agents:
A person who is an official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of a corporation providing services to the United States commits an offense if the person enforces or attempts to enforce a statute, a rule or regulation, an order, or any law of the United States in violation of this subchapter.
An offense under Subsection
(a) is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by confinement for a term not to exceed one year, a fine of not more than $10,000, or both the confinement and the fine.
This coming legislative session, Texas won’t be alone in its efforts. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect at least 10 other states considering the same. And potentially dozens of counties and cities can be expected to move along these lines as well.
MORE . . .
Related articles
- Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
- Will Texas Nullify Both NDAA and TSA? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Michigan Nullifying the NDAA: A Work in Progress (rubinoworld.com)
- States Considering Nullification (rubinoworld.com)
- Second Michigan county says “NO!” to federal kidnapping (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
More Freedom, Not Less
via More Freedom, Not Less – Tenth Amendment Center Blog.
Judge Napolitano on Pot Legalization ‘These Are Times That Call for More Freedom, Rather Than Less”
Twenty States Now Have Petitions to Peacefully Secede From Union on White House Website
by jim hoft
Twenty states have now started petitions on the White House website to peacefully secede from the United States. In less than one week Texas and Louisiana are already close to having the 24,000 signatures needed before the Obama Administration will respond to their request.
via Twenty States Now Have Petitions to Peacefully Secede From Union on White House Website – YouTube.
Nullification Victories!
Posted by Michael Boldin via Tenth Amendment Center
Yesterday, Barack Obama won the presidential election. But, the people of six states voted to take their freedom without federal “permission.”
In ten states – Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Massachusetts and Alabama – voters had a chance to resist DC and approve ballot initiatives which would nullify unconstitutional federal acts. Six of them passed. And here’s a brief rundown of each:
1. Montana, Referendum 122
LR-122 is an act “prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance.” It also prohibits the imposition of “penalties for decisions related to the purchase of health insurance coverage.”
The measure passed overwhelmingly, 65%-34%
Full report HERE
2. Colorado, Amendment 64
Section 3 allows the “personal use and regulation of marijuana” for adults 21 and over. Section 4 addresses legal commercial cultivation, manufacture, and sale. The intent is that marijuana be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol.
Colorado, after Washington State (info below), is the 2nd state in the country to have passed full legalization, and one of only a handful in the entire world.
The measure passed by 54%-46%
Full report HERE
3. Alabama, Amendment 6
This legislatively-referred amendment frees Alabama citizens from any requirement to participate in Obamacare, or any other compulsory health care program. The ballot language reads as follows:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to prohibit any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system.
It passed, 59%-41%.
Full report HERE
4. Washington State, Initiative 502
Whatever you call the plant, Washington DC considers it dangerous and illegal. Laws on the books in Congress – illegal. The executive branch – aggressive about enforcing those laws. The supreme court – in 2005 ruled against the idea of states legalizing for any purpose.
But yet, 18 states have been standing up and defying DC on this issue by legalizing marijuana for limited medicinal purposes. Washington’s I-502 takes it a step further. It ends marijuana prohibition and treats pot in the same manner as alcohol. People are allowed to grow, produce, sell, buy and consume the plant – in direct defiance to all three branches of the federal government.
The Initiative passed, 55%-45%
Full report HERE
MORE . . .
Related articles
- Nullification Victories! (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
- Nullification Victories! (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Nine States Voting on Nullification Measures this Week (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Alabama Voters Nullify Obamacare Mandates (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Nullification: Colorado and Washington Disregard Federal Marijuana Prohibition (lewrockwell.com)
If Alabama voters choose freedom, will lawmakers step up?
Posted by Mike Maharrey via Tenth Amendment Center Blog
MONTGOMERY, Ala. – A simple amendment to the Alabama state constitution could set the stage for blocking implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the Heart of Dixie.
Alabama voters will consider Amendment 6 on Nov. 6. The legislatively-referred amendment would free Alabama citizens from any requirement to participate in Obamacare, or any other compulsory health care program.The ballot language reads as follows:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to prohibit any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system.
Yes ___
No ___
“We want the people of Alabama to know that if we’re going to join a program like that we’re going to have it on a ballot, and you and me and everyone will be able to vote and decide if we want to join a national health plan or not,” Rep. Phil Williams (R-Madison) said.
If passed, the amendment would place the onus on the Alabama legislature and executive branch to block implementation of the PPACA and shield their citizens from federal mandates.
MORE . . .
Related articles
- If Alabama voters choose freedom, will lawmakers step up? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Florida voters get oppotunity to say ‘No!’ to federal insurance mandates (rubinoworld.com)
- Three and Counting: Another State Considers Obamacare Nullification (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
Will Montana Voters Nullify the Mandate?
HELENA, Mont. – On Nov. 6, Montana residents will exercise their sovereign right and decide on health care freedom.
LR-122 would prohibit the state and federal governments from requiring any Montana citizen to purchase health insurance, or from “imposing any penalty, tax, fee or fine on those who do not purchase health insurance.”
Supporters in the legislature opted for a legislatively-referred state statute, figuring they would have a better chance of getting the bill enacted as a ballot measure, avoiding Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s veto pen.
Rep. Gary MacLaren (R-Victor) introduced the measure in the House. He called health insurance mandates a punishment for poverty.
“Who doesn’t have health insurance? People who can’t afford it. If they don’t [buy it] we’re going to fine them. So what are we doing? We’re fining people for being poor.”
MORE . . .
Related articles
- Will Montana Voters Nullify the Mandate? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Florida voters get oppotunity to say ‘No!’ to federal insurance mandates (rubinoworld.com)
- States Considering Nullification (rubinoworld.com)
- Three and Counting: Another State Considers Obamacare Nullification (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
