Blog

NDAA: Liberty Preservation Act Legislative Templates

“and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”- James Madison,Virginia Resolutions,1798

”whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force”-Thomas Jefferson,Kentucky Resolutions,1798

The time to resist the arrest and detention provisions of NDAA is here. The Tenth Amendment Center, in keeping with its position as the nations’s premiere think tank on the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty, has released these three templates of resistance. Time to let the state legislature and the Governor know what we expect of them.  Our preference is no less than an act of non compliance. Our legislature is not very aggressive when it comes to standing up to the general government, so this will take repeated heavy demands upon them to act on this in North Carolina.

These templates can also be used at the county, city and township levels.

***************************

This legislative package is a state-level response to constitutional violations by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) – primarily provisions that authorize indefinite detention. Activists, we encourage you to send this to your state senators and representatives – and ask them to introduce this legislation in your state.

Depending on the strength of opposition in your area, we recommend either a 1, 2 or 3 step action plan vis a vis this legislation. The 3-step plan includes each of the 3 pieces of model legislation below, and each builds on each other. A 2 step plan would start with #2, then move to #3 in a future session. A 1 step plan would start with #3. Please work with whatever will have the most effect in your area over the long run…

*******

The first, a resolution, affirms the proper role of the federal government under the constitution, and also the role of the state government in ending such actions. This is essential in areas where awareness of such duties is low.

The second, a non-compliance act is a binding state law which requires all state agencies to refuse compliance with the federal government in the enforcement of the offending provisions of the NDAA.

The third, a state nullification act is a binding state law which requires all state agencies to not only refuse compliance as in the second, but also renders the federal act illegal within the boundaries of the state – with penalties for violating the state act.

*******

Originally written by our friends at the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition for use on a State or Local level.
NOTE: wherever text is in parenthesize, you need to insert the term appropriate to your forum

Resolution: Liberty Preservation

WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States passed the National Defense Authorization Act, 2011 P.L. 112-81, (“2012 NDAA”) for Fiscal Year 2012 on December 15, 2011;

WHEREAS, the President of the United States of America signed the 2012 NDAA into law on December 31, 2011;

WHEREAS, Section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA requires the Armed Forces of the United States to detain, pending disposition according to the Law of War, any person involved in, or whom provided substantial support to, terrorism or belligerent acts against the United States, and whom is a member of Al-Qaeda or an associated force;

WHEREAS, Section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA specifically excludes United States citizens, and lawful resident aliens for conduct occurring within the United States, from its mandatory detention provisions;

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA purports to authorize, but does not require, the President of the United States to utilize the armed forces of the United States to detain persons the President suspects were part of, or substantially supported, al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces;

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA purports to authorize, but does not require, the President of the United States, through the Armed Forces of the United States, to dispose of such detained persons according to the Law of War, which may include but is not limited to: (1) indefinite detention without charge or trial until the end of hostilities authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, 2001 P.L. 107-40, (2) prosecution through a Military Commission, or (3) transfer to a foreign country or foreign entity.

WHEREAS, unlike Section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, Section 1021 makes no specific exclusion for United States citizens and lawful resident aliens for conduct occurring within the United States;

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA seeks to preserve existing law and authorities pertaining to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, and any other person captured in the United States, but does not specify what such existing law or authorities are;

WHEREAS, the specific exclusion of application to United States citizens and lawful resident aliens contained in Section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, and the absence of such exclusion in Section 1021 of the NDAA, strongly implies that the provisions of Section 1021 are intended to apply to United States citizens and lawful resident aliens, whether or not they are captured in the United States;

WHEREAS, the Office of the President of the United States, under both the administrations of George W. Bush and Barak H. Obama, has asserted the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists allows the Office of the President to indefinitely detain without charge United States Citizens and lawful resident aliens captured in the United States;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has not decided whether the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists allows the Office of the President to indefinitely detain without charge United States Citizens and lawful resident aliens captured in the United States;

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA purports enlarge the scope of the those persons the Office of the President may indefinitely detain beyond those responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and those who harbored them, as purportedly authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, to now include “[a] person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces;”

WHEREAS, United States Senator Carl Levin declared in colloquy on the floor of the United States Senate that the original 2012 NDAA provided that section 1021 (then section 1031 prior to final drafting) specifically would not apply to United States citizens, but that the Office of the President of the United States had requested that such restriction be removed from the 2012 NDAA;

WHEREAS, during debate within the Senate and before the passage of the 2012 NDAA, United States Senator Mark Udall introduced an amendment intended to forbid the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, which was rejected by a vote of 38–60;

WHEREAS, United States Senator John McCain and United States Senator Lindsey Graham declared in colloquies on the floor of the United States Senate that Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA authorized the indefinite detention of United States Citizens captured within the United States by the Armed Forces of the United States;

WHEREAS, United States Senator Lindsey Graham declared in colloquy on the floor of the United States Senate that the United States homeland is now part of “the battlefield;”

WHEREAS, Policing the citizenry of the United States of America by the Armed Forces of the United States, as purportedly authorized by the 2012 NDAA, overturns the Posse Comitatus doctrine and is repugnant to a free society;

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA as it purports to authorize, 1) detainment of United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America without charge, 2) military tribunals for United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America, and 3) the transfer of United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America to foreign jurisdictions, is violative of the following rights enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America;

•Article I Section 9, Clause 2’s right to seek Writ of Habeas Corpus;
•The First Amendment’s right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances;
•The Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures;
•The Fifth Amendment’s right to be free from charge for an infamous or capitol crime until presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury;
•The Fifth Amendment’s right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without Due Process of law;
•The Sixth Amendment’s right in criminal prosecutions to enjoy a speedy trial by an impartial jury in the State and District where the crime shall have been committed;
•The Sixth Amendment’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
•The Sixth Amendment’s right confront witnesses;
•The Sixth Amendment’s right to Counsel;
•The Eighth Amendment’s right to be free from excessive bail and fines, and cruel and unusual punishment;
•The Fourteenth Amendment’s right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without Due Process of law;

WHEREAS, Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA as it purports to authorize, 1) detainment of United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America without charge or trial, 2) military tribunals for United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America, and 3) the transfer of United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America to foreign jurisdictions, is repugnant to the following rights enshrined in the (STATE) Constitution: (NOTE – AS WRITTEN FOR THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND. ENTER RELEVANT SECTIONS FROM YOUR STATE BELOW)

•Article I Section 2’s right to be free from deprivation of life or liberty without Due Process of law;
•Article I Section 5’s right to have prompt recourse to the laws for all injuries to one’s person;
•Article I Section 6’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure;
•Article I Section 7’s right to be free from capital charge absent a grand jury indictment, or felony charge absent grand jury indictment absent information signed by the attorney general;
•Article I, Section 8’s right to be free from excessive bail;
•Article I Section 9’s right to bail and right to Habeas Corpus;
•Article I Section 10’s right to a speedy pubic trial by an impartial jury, right to have the assistance of counsel, and the right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, unless by the judgment of peers;
•Article I Section 14’s right to be presumed innocent until pronounced guilty by the law;
•Article I Section 15’s right to a trial by Jury;
•Article I Section 18’s requirement that the military authority is subordinate to the civil authority;

WHEREAS, the members of this (Legislature, Town Council, County Government, etc..) have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of (Rhode Island);

WHEREAS, this (Legislature, Town Council, County Government, etc..) opposes any and all rules, laws, regulations, bill language or executive orders, which amount to an overreach of the federal government and which effectively take away civil liberties;

WHEREAS, it is indisputable that the threat of terrorism is real, and that the full force of appropriate and constitutional law must be used to defeat this threat; however, winning the war against terror cannot come at the great expense of mitigating basic, fundamental, constitutional rights;

WHEREAS, undermining our own Constitutional rights serves only to concede to the terrorists’ demands of changing the fabric of what made the United States of America a country of freedom, liberty and opportunity.

NOW BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the (Legislature, City Council, etc…) of the (Your State, Municipality or County), condemns in no uncertain terms Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA as it purports to 1) repeal Posse Comitatus and authorize the President of the United States to utilize the Armed Forces of the United States to police United States citizens and lawful resident aliens within the United States of America, 2) indefinitely detain United States citizens and lawful resident aliens captured within the United States of America without charge until the end of hostilities authorized by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, 3) subject American Citizens and lawful resident aliens captured within the United States of America to military tribunals, and 4) transfer American Citizens and lawful resident aliens captured within the United States of America to a foreign country or foreign entity; and

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Legislature finds that the enactment into law by the United States Congress of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Public Law Number 112-81, is inimical to the liberty, security and well-being of the people of (STATE), and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in United States Constitution; and

BE IT RESOLVED, That copies of this Resolution be immediately transmitted to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each member of Congress from the State of (STATE) to the Honorable John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court; each justice on the United States Supreme Court; and the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each state’s legislature.

 

Liberty Preservation Act: Noncompliance

GENERAL DESCRIPTIONThis bill prohibits all public officers, agents, and employees of the State of (STATE) from providing material support or participating in the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

HIGHLIGHTED PROVISIONS
This bill:

prohibits all public officers, agents, and employees of the State of (STATE) from providing material support or participating in the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012; and

makes it a class A misdemeanor for a person to provide material support or participate in the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of (STATE):

SECTION 1. NEW LAW

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the “Liberty Preservation Act.”

A.. 1. The Legislature finds that the enactment into law by the United States Congress of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Public Law Number 112-81, is inimical to the liberty, security and well-being of the people of (STATE), and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in United States Constitution.

2. The Legislature finds that, together, Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, as they purport to authorize 1) detainment of United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America without charge, 2) military tribunals for United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America, and 3) the transfer of United States Citizens and legal resident aliens captured within the United States of America to foreign jurisdictions, are violative of the following rights enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America;

•Article I Section 9, Clause 2’s right to seek Writ of Habeas Corpus;
•The First Amendment’s right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances;
•The Fourth Amendment’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures;
•The Fifth Amendment’s right to be free from charge for an infamous or capitol crime until presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury;
•The Fifth Amendment’s right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without Due Process of law;
•The Sixth Amendment’s right in criminal prosecutions to enjoy a speedy trial by an impartial jury in the State and District where the crime shall have been committed;
•The Sixth Amendment’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
•The Sixth Amendment’s right confront witnesses;
•The Sixth Amendment’s right to Counsel;
•The Eighth Amendment’s right to be free from excessive bail and fines, and cruel and unusual punishment;
•The Fourteenth Amendment’s right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without Due Process of law;

3. (VIOLATIONS OF STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS – ENTER SPECIFICS HERE)

See resolution section above for an example from Rhode Island

B The State of (STATE) shall not provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 within the boundaries of this state. The Department of Public Safety is hereby directed to report to the Governor and the Legislature any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States Federal Government to secure the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 through the operations of that or any other state department.

C. Any public officer, employee, or agent of the State of (STATE), or any employee of a corporation providing services to the State of (STATE) that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of Subsection 1 B of this act shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months or by a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or both such fine and imprisonment;

SECTION 2.

This act takes effect immediately upon approval by the Governor.

 

Liberty Preservation Act: Nullification

AN ACT relating to detainment without charge, military tribunals, and transfer to foreign jurisdictions of United States Citizens and legal resident aliens residing in the State of (STATE); creating the Liberty Preservation Act; providing legislative findings and declarations of authority; prohibiting state from providing material support for certain acts; prohibiting state participation in the implementation of certain acts; making certain acts unlawful; providing penalties; and providing an effective date.Be it Enacted by the People of the State of (STATE):

SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law not to be codified in (STATE) Statutes reads as follows:

This act shall be known and may be cited as the “(STATE) Liberty Preservation Act”

SECTION 2. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the (STATE) Statutes as Section (NUMBER) of Title (NUMBER), unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

The Legislature declares that the authority for this act is the following:

1. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the United States Federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers delegated to it in the Constitution and nothing more. The guaranty of those limitations on federal power is a matter of contract between the state and people of (STATE) and the United States at of the time that the Constitution was agreed upon and adopted by (STATE) and the United States;

2. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States provides that laws of the United States are the supreme law of the land provided that they are made in pursuance of the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution;

3. Article I Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution provides that the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it;

4. The First Amendment provides that the Congress of the United States shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances;

4. The Fourth Amendment provides that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;

5. The Fifth Amendment provides that the People have a right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without Due Process of law;

6. The Sixth Amendment provides that the people have a right in criminal prosecutions to enjoy a speedy trial by an impartial jury in the State and District where the crime shall have been committed; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to confront witnesses; to Counsel;

7. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that the people are to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without Due Process of law.

SECTION 3. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the (STATE) Statutes as Section (NUMBER) of Title (NUMBER), unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

The Legislature finds that:

1. Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 purports to assert the President’s authority to not only arrest suspected terrorists, but also to determine whether or not a trial, including what type of trial, will be held for those arrested;

2. Section 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 requires detention without trial by the military for a certain class of terrorist and authorizes but does not require the same for citizens of the United States;

3. The exemption for citizens of the United States in Section 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 only exempts citizens from a requirement and reads as follows, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States”;

4. The enactment into law by the United States Congress of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Public Law Number 112-81, is inimical to the liberty, security and well-being of the people of (STATE), and was adopted by the United States Congress in violation of the limits of federal power in United States Constitution, including but not limited to, those listed in Section 2 of this act.

SECTION 4. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the (STATE) Statutes as Section (NUMBER) of Title (NUMBER), unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

1 The State of (STATE) shall not provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 within the boundaries of this state;

2. The Department of Public Safety is hereby directed to report to the Governor and the Legislature any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States Federal Government to secure the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 through the operations of that or any other state department;

3. The indefinite detention, prosecution according to the law of war, and transfer to a foreign jurisdiction of citizens of the United States as provided for by Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 are in direct contravention to the limits on federal power as specified in Section 2 of this act and are illegal within the boundaries of the state of (STATE);

SECTION 5. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the (STATE) Statutes as Section (NUMBER) of Title (NUMBER), unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

1. Any public officer, employee, or agent of the State of (STATE), or any employee of a corporation providing services to the State of (STATE) that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of Section 4 of this act shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months or by a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or both such fine and imprisonment;

2. Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of Section 4 of this act shall be guilty of a class B felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, or a fine of not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

SECTION 6. This act shall take effect immediately upon approval by the Governor.

Jan 27, 2012 | Categories:Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »

To The Supporters of the NDAA

You say that:

1. The authority is specific and narrowly constrained.

Laws written by Congress do not override the Constitution, if they wish to change the Constitution they need to follow Article V. Regardless we can all site examples of laws that were “specific and narrowly constrained” that were violated by the Executive or broadened by the Courts.

2. The battlefield is wherever the enemy is.

Since they have declared the whole world to be the battlefield including the United States, when can we expect Martial Law to be declared?

3. The Fifth Amendment does not apply to unprivileged belligerents.

On American soil who determines the definition of belligerents, Congress, the President, the Military or the Courts?

Abraham Lincoln detained without habeas corpus over 13,000 citizens that disagreed with his polices including a US Representative. After the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.

Woodrow Wilson again detained American citizens that spoke out against his policies during WWI or just happened to speak German in public.

And the most outrageous of all was FDR’s confining American citizens to Internment Camps without charges just because they were of Japanese descent.

4. The bill only authorizes detention of the 9/11 attackers, Taliban, al-Qaeda, or their supporters. SO IF YOU ARE NOT A MUZZY TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER, THE BILL DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU!!!!!

Since this is an unusual conflict where no Official Declaration of War exists all rules of war do not seem to apply according to the Executive Branch, i.e. POWs and their treatment. This is not a war against a State or even an ideology, but a “War on Terrorism”. Terrorism is a tactic used by multiple individuals and groups; so all that needs to be stated is that someone is a terrorist to nullify their rights? Keep in mind the Vice President and the former Speaker of the House among other government officials have called the Tea Party activists terrorist.

5. The Non-Detention Act of 1971 was passed to repeal portions of McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950, [1], specifically Title II, the “Emergency Detention Act”. It had allowed for detention of suspected subversives without the normal Constitutional checks required for imprisonment. The Non-Detention Act requires specific Congressional authorization for such detention. Passed as Public Law 92-128, 85 Stat. 347 (1971), it was codified at 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a).
This Defense Authorization Bill does not repeal the Non-Detention Act of 1971. It follows it!

These two arguments seem to say that if Congress just passes a law then it is legal and Constitutional. Only laws passed in accordance with the Constitution are legal otherwise they are ‘null and void’. If Congress can pass anything it wants and the President can do anything he wants and then the Supreme Court goes along with it; it still does not make it Constitutional.

The Constitution was created and ratified by the States and they not the Federal Government have the final say over what is Constitutional, for  if the Federal government is the final arbiter of its own powers then we do not have a Constitution of limited powers, because they can say it  means whatever they want it to mean.

6. There are limits on detention…
(a) No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.

The authority is specific and narrowly constrained… (enemy combatants) that have joined declared enemies and began fighting for them or aiding them. They are unprivileged prisoners of war. POW’s do not get trials, but are held until the end of the military action.
But in the case of this law, the DOJ can opt for a civilian trial if they wish.

Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution plainly states… “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have the power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. “

Looks to me like no American citizen can be held indefinitely without charges, they must be tried for treason if they go to War or gave aid and comfort to our enemies, they are not “enemy combatants” they are traitors according to the Constitution.

“In the 62 cases reviewed, the subjects increasingly spoke out against the government, blamed the government for perceived problems and did so in a way that caught the attention of other people in their communities, according to the senior counterterrorism official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private White House event. Subjects became active on the Internet to espouse extremist views. And in some cases, the subjects purchased weapons, ammunition or explosive materials.” *

Other than having explosives, I conceivably fit the bill. So, do any of those things apply to you?

* Police chiefs to discuss terrorism at White House

Still have more questions, then check out NDAA: Open Season for the Police State transcript from TRX: Tenth Amendment Radio featuring Jim Babka from DownsizeDC.

 

Jan 26, 2012 | Categories:Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »

It’s Time to Roll up Your Sleeves

Written by Mike Maharrey

Like most guys, I started to gain weight in my 30s. In fact, I got pretty big.

My solution?

Complain about it.

I can remember sitting on the coach bemoaning my increasing girth. Oh sure, every once in a while I would get really disgusted with myself and run a few days in a row, or create some kind of workout regimen. I generally followed up the exercise session with a donut, or maybe a sausage and egg biscuit from McDonald’s, and then more complaining. It never lasted very long either – those bursts of workout mania.  After a week or two, my disgust would revert back to apathy and I returned to the couch – with more complaining

And of course, I got bigger.

It wasn’t until I got really serious and made a true commitment to change my lifestyle that I lost any weight. Open heart surgery for a genetic defect jumpstarted my lifestyle change. A week on a cardiac wing will do that to you. I realized I didn’t want the future so many of my fellow patients in the hospital were living. Watching men and women in their 50s struggling just to walk across a room jolted me out of my stupor. I suddenly discovered enthusiasm for getting in shape and maintaining a healthier diet.

But make no mistake; it took a lot of work, self-sacrifice and determination. No more donuts, at least not on a regular basis. No more trips to Mickey D’s. Hard work in the gym and at the track. Every day.

British historian Arnold J. Toynbee said, “Apathy can be overcome by enthusiasm, and enthusiasm can only be aroused by two things: first, an ideal, which takes the imagination by storm, and second, a definite intelligible plan for carrying that ideal into practice.”

It took enthusiasm to rouse me from my complacency and motivate me to start taking care of myself. After recovering from my surgery, the ideal of healthy living took my imagination by storm. I developed a plan – diet and exercise. Then I went to work. Sure enough, the weight eventually came off.

Most American’s approach politics in much the same way I approached weight loss in my early 30s – sit on the couch and complain. Every once in a while, they may get up and fire off a letter to a senator, or throw a sign up in the yard supporting a presidential candidate. But after that little burst of energy, back to the couch for the latest episode of American Idol, or the next big basketball game.

And the government gets bigger.

Most American’s recognize Washington D.C. as a problem. Recent polling indicates a majority of Americans view an ever more powerful federal government as a threat. But Washington D.C. will never change itself. That’s a little like expecting a baby to hop up and change its own diaper. Every parent knows that infant will wallow in her own filth until the end of time until somebody comes along and changes that soiled diaper.

It’s time for the American people to change some diapers. But that will never happen while you sit on the couch watching TV. The federal government won’t change just because you write a letter to your congressman one day when you feel particularly irked. D.C. won’t shrink just because you vote one bum out, making way for a new bum.

The states hold the key to reigning in an overreaching federal government. James Madison said states “have the right, and are duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

But state representatives won’t do squat until we the people insist. We can argue for principles like nullification until we turn blue in the face, but our states won’t act without prompting. Citizens have the opportunity to exercise much more influence over state legislators and executives than they do over federal officials hundreds of miles away in D.C. We live in our state officials’ neighborhoods, our kids go to the same schools as their kids and we shop in the same stores.

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to get to work.

The greatest danger to our liberty doesn’t reside in the White House, nor does it roam the corridors of Capitol Hill office buildings.

Apathy stands as the greatest threat to our liberty.

We’ve got the ideal – the Tenth Amendment. We’ve got the intelligible plan for carrying that ideal into practice – nullification. But we need help.

Become a member and support the TAC!

We need people to step up and support the work of the Tenth Amendment Center financially. We can’t educate and lobby without funds. We can’t maintain a website and put on events without a reliable flow of cash. And while we’re on the subject, I am extremely limited in what I can do for TAC because I work a full-time job. Even so, our organization has managed to create a high level of visibility on the national stage. We’ve had information from our press releases find its way into major newspapers and radio and TV broadcasts. I had the opportunity last year to
speak before a joint congressional committee. Imagine what we could do if I could dedicate my full attention to TAC? It staggers my imagination sometimes.

But even more than that, we need workers. We need volunteers to go out and get involved in their states, lobbying their representatives, pushing legislation, campaigning for candidates who will uphold the principles of the Constitution and stand up to federal overreach. We need volunteers to attend meetings and educate people on the Constitution. We need workers to organize groups, write letters to the editor, blog, make videos and track legislation.

We need people to do work.

Will you consider volunteering? Washington D.C. will not fix itself. And you can’t rely on politicians. It’s up to you!

Just click this link to get started.

“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.” -Samuel Adams

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenthergeanings.

Jan 23, 2012 | Categories:Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »

NCTAC Requests Governor Perdue Take A Stand Against NDAA

While we compile our letters to the legislature, Attorney General and others in our State Government, we thought we would share our request to Governor Perdue. We’ll let you know her response when and if we receive one.

 

Office of the Governor Bev Perdue
20301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-0301
(919) 733-5811

Dear Governor Perdue;

The NDAA is the single biggest evisceration of our Bill of Rights in our lifetime. Never before have the definitions of terrorist and terrorist supporter been so vague and defined so broadly; never before have we codified into law a president’s non-existent authority to arrest and detain American citizens on American soil. The arrest and detention provision of NDAA should in the words of Congressman Ron Paul, “chill us to our core.”

As Governor, your duty to protect North Carolina’s citizens is clear. Towards this end we are urging you to do the following immediately:

1. Issue a formal and official statement condemning this act by Congress.

2. Ask the state legislature to author and pass a bill of nullification rendering the arrest and detention provisions of NDAA void and of no force inside the State of North Carolina. Sign this bill immediately upon passage.

3. Advise North Carolina’s Sheriffs as the Chief Law Enforcement Officers in their Counties to meet any attempts to implement of these provisions in their counties with the appropriate force to prevent such implementation.

4. Issue an advisory letter to President Obama, Congress and the Secretary of Defense that the arrest and detention provisions of NDAA are unconstitutional and as such are no law at all. State that these provisions are in the words of Jefferson “un-authoritative, void and of no force” in North Carolina.

5. Issue a letter of official dissatisfaction to both North Carolina US Senators Richard Burr and Kay Hagen who voted AYE for this act and to all members of North Carolina’s delegation to the House of Representatives who voted AYE for this act. (The following did not: Mel Watt and David Price)

6. Issue a State of the State address to the people of North Carolina on your stand for LIBERTY and why this action was necessary.

These perilous times in our history require a stand for freedom. Your actions in this regard for the cause of LIBERTY will be remembered in 2012.

William Kennedy
State Chapter Coordinator
North Carolina Tenth Amendment Center
http://northcarolina.tenthamendmentcenter.com
http://www.facebook.com/NorthCarolinaTenthAmendmentCenter

Jan 21, 2012 | Categories:Localism | 2 Comments »

Repeal Amendment, the “Rightful Remedy”?

“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several States, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describes the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

Having heard on several occasions that we need an amendment to the Constitution to empower States with the ability to overturn laws from Washington I went and looked at the Repeal Amendment shown above and I am not enthusiastic at all because:

  1. it is being proposed by Representatives and Senators, which leaves me wondering why some of them voted for the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, NDAA, and other federal overreach laws,
  2. and two-thirds of the States are required to agree that a law/regulation is unconstitutional, or maybe just annoying for it to be repealed.

As to the first, I assume that some of the Representatives and Senators are sincere in their desire to reign in the federal government, but they are heading down a path that leads to less control over the federal government, not more. They are being led by some of the same career politicians who have given us many of the very laws they are now against; so why the change; have they seen the light, or is this just politics as usual?

By design, getting an amendment approved is a long and arduous undertaking, where two-thirds of both houses must pass it before it goes out to the State Legislatures for debate, where then three-fourths of the States must pass it for it to be added to the Constitution.  Since both political parties have contributed to the continued chipping away of the Constitution, does anyone really believe that there will be a strong fight to get this passed?

Second, it seems to me that we would be adding an amendment to reinforce two other amendments (9th and 10th); the power is already in our  state legislatures’ hands if they would just say, “NO!”  A state is not an appendage or agent of the federal government, but sovereign in its own right, the States created the federal government to be their agent with certain enumerated powers.  Since each State debated these enumerated powers and agreed to them, the States became parties to a contract as equal partners with the federal government acting as their agent.  An equal sovereign partner does not need the consent or agreement of other sovereigns to decide whether a law or regulation is unconstitutional and a violation of that contract and the States’ reserved rights.

The fundamental principal of all representative governments is the rule of the majority, but they must be consistent in protecting the rights of the minority, and it follows that the minority may not impose on the majority.  It only takes a majority in the US House and Senate to pass an unconstitutional law over the objections of the minority, but it would also only take a minority of States to block the repeal of an unconstitutional law if the this Repeal Amendment were passed.

The first historic example of the tyranny of the majority occurred when one political party controlled both the federal government and a majority of state governments, and they passed the blatantly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts. They used this majority to pass numerous state resolutions adamantly objecting to Virginia and Kentucky for saying these “laws violated the Constitution and they were therefore null and void”.  Under this proposed Repeal Amendment, Virginia and Kentucky would have been forced to comply because those laws would be considered “Constitutional” because they would not have been able to get 2/3 of the states to agree to declare them unconstitutional.

Obamacare is a more recent example of one party controlling both houses of Congress, along with the executive branch, and passing a clearly unconstitutional law over the objections of the minority. Under this Repeal Amendment, would there be 33 States that could be counted on to vote to repeal this law, and how many years would it take for that to play out?  In the meantime, the law would go into effect and the people would be forced to abide by its mandates and regulations.

An even worse case scenario would be if a majority of both houses passed a law that affects only a single State; what then? And how may that State defend itself and its citizens?  Must it comply because it cannot get 33 other States to repeal that law?  Are the reserved rights of the States valid only if a majority the States concur?  Would laws be any less unconstitutional if other States failed agree?  The Repeal Amendment has no provision to compel other States to even discuss the law, much less to vote on its repeal in a timely manner.  Therefore, must a State that clearly believes a law is unconstitutional submit to that law for weeks, months, or even years?  An unconstitutional law should not be tolerated, even for a day; for when it is, that State forfeits a little more of its sovereignty and soon becomes nothing more than an agent of the federal government.

The answer to unconstitutional laws will not come from the federal government (no matter whom we elect), but from the States; if they will only say “enough is enough” and mean it. The answer is certainly not spending years trying to get another Amendment passed, and if it did pass, spending perhaps years trying to get two-thirds of the States to act. The answer has already been put before us and it is NULLIFICATION!

Jan 19, 2012 | Categories:Education, Legislation | Leave A Comment »

Will the TRAIN Act Fix the EPA?

There is a bill expected to come before the federal congress this week, called the TRAIN Act. I received an email that described the need to act limit the power of the EPA so:

The TRAIN ACT would:
- Fight back against EPA regulations that would raise energy prices for consumers and destroy jobs
- Reject the EPA’s attempt to shut down coal as one key source of our energy needs
- Ensure that America continues to be able to use its own natural resources for energy, as opposed to relying more on foreign sources of energy
Call NOW and tell your Representative to vote YES on the TRAIN ACT!

This all sounds wonderful and beneficial to America. I have a question: What will happen once we have hacked off these particular thorny branches from the EPA brambles? Obviously, they will just return to snag us again, and will continue to grow in other locations. This bill does not address the root cause of the problem: The EPA is nowhere authorized in the U.S. Constitution. At the TAC, we say: The Constitution: every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.

Here in North Carolina, in the 2011 legislative session, H240 – The Intrastate Commerce Act was introduced by Representative Glen Bradley and co-sponsored by Representatives Mark Hilton, Bert Jones, Shirley Randleman and Harry Warren. This bill is similar to the Intrastate Commerce Act model legislation on TenthAmendmentCenter.com. This legislation is a real solution to the problems created by the EPA: it recognizes the reality that the federal government simply does not have the power to regulate commerce within our state. It addresses the root of the problem, instead of hacking away at branches.

It is time for North Carolinians to take responsibility for our economy and stop blaming our problems on an out of control federal government, and then begging that same federal government to curtail its powers. It is time for the people of North Carolina to accept this well-proven fact: the federal government will never limit it’s own powers. I would personally like to thank these alert and thoughtful NC representatives listed above who sponsored NC’s Intrastate Commerce Act. They are leaders who are acting like adults, taking responsibility for their own lives, and stopping to seek approval from or cast blame on the federal government. If you live in North Carolina, then I hope that you will take a moment to thank these representatives also, they certainly deserve our thanks and support. Then, take a moment and email this article to your representative. Ask them to support the Intrastate Commerce Act and other legislation like it.

If you want to call your federal congressman and tell them to continue tilting at windmills then feel free. Personally, I’m tired of this Quixotic theater of the absurd. I know that only the people of North Carolina are going to protect the people of North Carolina: my family, my neighbors and my state representatives. The time for self-reliance and personal responsibility is now.

Sep 19, 2011 | Categories:Legislation | Leave A Comment »

Thank You Glen Bradley!

Glen Bradley
Glen Bradley – Defender of the Constitution and hero of the NC 2011 Legislative Session

We want to take a moment to bring to your attention a truly exceptional legislator in North Carolina: Representative Glen Bradley. Glen is a true patriot and defender of the Constitution and he is an exceptionally rare member of the North Carolina legislature.

As you may know, the Tenth Amendment Center provides model legislation in a number of areas. Glen has introduced or supported legislation in the 2011 session which aligns closely with no less than 7 of our legislative focuses. This is the most number of bills of any legislator in the 2011 session, including a heroic introduction of The Constitutional Tender act, where he was the sole primary sponsor with no co-sponsors.

Glen: Thank you so much for your heroic efforts in the 2011 NC Legislative Session! You are an inspiration to us all!

Dear Reader: Please take a moment of your time and send Representative Bradley a heartfelt Thank You! His contact information is provided below. Please visit his re-election site (http://glenbradley2012.com/) and donate your time or money as you can. Appropriately, there is a Constitution Day moneybomb scheduled for September 17th.

Here is a listing of the bills which Representative Bradley has sponsored or co-sponsored, and for which we at the Tenth Amendment Center are very grateful. Primary sponsor is designated by a P, and co-sponsor by a C.

H 2 – Protect Healthcare Freedom (C)

H 34 – State’s Right to Claim Sovereignty (P)

H 65 – North Carolina Famer’s Freedom Protection Act (P)

H 240 – Intrastate Commerce (P)

H 241 – North Carolina Firearms Freedom Act (P)

H 448 – Constitutional Tender Act (P)

H 577 – Medical Cannabis Act (C)

Contact Information:

Rep. Glen Bradley (R)
Franklin, Halifax, Nash / Youngsville
Glen.Bradley@ncleg.net
Raleigh Office – 919-733-5860
Local Office – 919-728-0449

Sep 15, 2011 | Categories:Legislation | 4 Comments »

Washington Post Article Calls for Nullification of NCLB

The Obama administration’s Department of Education has a plan to offer ‘waivers’ regarding the closing of schools as mandated by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal education law. States are unable to meet the requirements, and apprehension is growing that penalties will kick in as goals are not met. The administration is frustrated with the slow pace of legislative reform as debate on reforming NCLB has been derailed by more pressing issues, such as the national debt ceiling and spending reforms.

It is very interesting to note an article which appeared in the Washington Post titled “Why states should refuse Duncan’s NCLB waivers” which reprints a letter from Monty Neill, executive director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, known as FairTest. In the article, Mr. Neill calls for nullification of NCLB without actually using the word ‘nullification’:

Mass resistance is likely the only course remaining. States should stop imposing additional sanctions on schools, as some states have said they will do. They should simultaneously refuse Duncan’s deal. This would be a good time to call Obama and Duncan’s bluff.

In the article, FairTest asserts that the standard imposed by the Obama administration will be even worse than those imposed by NCLB. This is as good a reason as any to nullify federal overreach, but there is another reason worth noting: The Department of Education is not a power delegated to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution. Education is the function and responsibility of the States and the people. Period.

This development evidences the fact that more and more groups are becoming aware that one-size-fits-all education policies will never work across as massive a geographical and cultural expanse as America. It is time for the sovereign states to take responsibility for their own children’s education and stop looking to some far off group of elites to plan their lives for them. The time to nullify the federal educational Leviathan is now.

Aug 09, 2011 | Categories:Education | Leave A Comment »

Agenda 21, ICLEI and the Tenth Amendment

I recently attended the North Raleigh Kitchen Table Meetup on Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 in Wake County North Carolina. I’d like to personally thank Pam and Russ for all their hard work in managing this group. This group is very concerned and knowledgeable about Agenda 21 and ICLEI. I learned at this meeting that the City of Raleigh and Town of Cary are both members of ICLEI, and have paid sustainability managers on staff who’s job it is to manage Agenda 21 implementation.

Agenda 21 and ICLEI

Agenda 21 is a UN initiative related to sustainable development. Agenda 21 has at its core environmentalism and social justice, and requires top-down control and centralization of power. ICLEI,  the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, founded in 1990 and known since 2003 as Local Governments for Sustainability, counts nearly 600 U.S. cities as its members as of April 17, 2011. ICLEI is the body that implements Agenda 21.

Agenda 21, ICLEI and Private Property Rights

The main difficulty that ICLEI has with implementing Agenda 21 in the U.S. is private property rights, just the same with any environmentalist movement. Big government types (Statists) love environmental issues, because it provides them a convenient excuse to control private property and other liberties. When you elevate the good of the collective over individual liberty, then it allows the government to do anything it wants as long as it can pretend it is for the good of the collective. On it’s face, it seems intuitive that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, however in practice this is an evil doctrine because it allows slick politicians to justify any crime against an individual or group of individuals. Agenda 21 and ICLEI are just a new incarnation of top-down, soviet-style centralized control and socialism… but with a new wrinkle.

Agenda 21, ICLEI and Localities

The new wrinkle of Agenda 21 is that localities, such as states, counties, cities and towns are the target of ICLEI. This is globalization being built from the bottom up, instead of being implemented at the national level and pushed down. It is being sold to naive local officials as a green initiative.

ICLEI and the U.S. Constitution

Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; . Localities, or any subdivision of a state, are bound by the Constitution. It would be legal for a person, such as a mayor, to be a member of an association such as ICLEI, but for a government body to be a member of such a group is on its face illegal. This requires more study on our behalf to determine who exactly is the member of ICLEI: is it our cities our the sustainability managers?

Agenda 21 and the Tenth Amendment

As Tenthers, we are fighting to restore the rights of the citizens of the states against federal overreach and encroachment. ICLEI’s bottom up approach has the localities and states making decisions, rather than the federal government. In this way, localities who choose to implement Agenda 21 are within their rights and Tenthers generally support local government over central government. Yet, to me personally, being a Tenther means fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and the liberties enshrined in that document, and Agenda 21 is a threat to those liberties. Perhaps, Agenda 21 does not land in my wheelhouse as a Tenther, but as a supporter of liberty, it sure seems important for me to share what I know about it.

What are your thoughts on Agenda 21 and how it relates to the 10th Amendment and freedom?

 

 

Jul 28, 2011 | Categories:Agenda 21, Environmentalism, Social Justice | 2 Comments »

Wake County Taxpayers Assn. – Thursday, July 28

NC TAC Outreach Director, Kevin Baynes, will be attending the Wake County Taxpayers Association on Thursday, July 28th, 2011.

Jul 26, 2011 | Categories:Events | Leave A Comment »