TAC Daily Digest http://feed.informer.com/digests/WYPPR38WMR/feeder TAC Daily Digest Respective post owners and feed distributors Fri, 13 Sep 2019 22:13:53 +0000 Feed Informer http://feed.informer.com/ Utah House Passes “Constitutional Carry” Bill https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/utah-house-passes-constitutional-carry-bill/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:e2da67a9-53c6-dc45-e1f7-bb85f5182068 Wed, 27 Jan 2021 00:42:48 +0000 <p>Today, the Utah House passed a “Constitutional Carry” bill that would make it legal to carry a firearm in the state without a license. The enactment of this bill would foster an environment hostile to federal gun control.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/utah-house-passes-constitutional-carry-bill/">Utah House Passes “Constitutional Carry” Bill</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>SALT LAKE CITY</strong>, Utah (Jan. 26, 2021) – Today, the Utah House passed a “Constitutional Carry” bill that would make it legal to carry a firearm in the state without a license. The enactment of this bill would foster an environment hostile to federal gun control.<span id="more-36192"></span></p> <p>On Dec. 22, Rep. Walt Brooks (R-George) filed House Bill 60 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/UT/bill/HB0060/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB60</a>), which would allow anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun could carry it without a state-issued license. Currently, to obtain a <a href="https://bci.utah.gov/concealed-firearm/how-do-i-apply-for-a-concealed-firearm-permit/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">concealed carry permit</a>, Utah gun owners must be 21 years old, have no felony or drug/alcohol convictions, and they cannot have been declared mentally incompetent by a state or federal court. Utah residents would still be able to obtain a concealed carry permit that could be used to carry concealed in states with CCDW reciprocity with Utah.</p> <p>On Jan. 26, the House <a href="https://legiscan.com/UT/rollcall/HB0060/id/990534" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed HB60 by a 54-19 vote</a>.</p> <p>Utah currently allows open carry without a permit.</p> <p>“The perception is that this bill is huge,” Brooks said, “but the reality is it’s very, very focused on, ‘Can I take my legally open carried (gun) and cover it with my jacket?’”</p> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL GUN CONTROL</strong></p> <p>While permitless carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway.</p> <p>The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”</p> <p>Less restrictive state gun laws will likely have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce any future federal gun control, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts.</p> <p>State actions such as passing HB60 would lower barriers for those wanting the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB60 will now move to the Senate for further consideration.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/utah-house-passes-constitutional-carry-bill/">Utah House Passes “Constitutional Carry” Bill</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Concealed Carry Constitutional Carry firearms HB60 Utah Mike Maharrey Missouri Senate Committee Passes Bill to Take on Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/missouri-senate-committee-passes-bill-to-take-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:dd2a6572-e8df-a464-1fa1-e026ad9a297f Tue, 26 Jan 2021 23:56:45 +0000 <p>a Missouri Senate committee passed a bill that would take on federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/missouri-senate-committee-passes-bill-to-take-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/">Missouri Senate Committee Passes Bill to Take on Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (Jan. 26, 2021) &#8211; Today, a Missouri Senate committee passed a bill that would take on federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.<span id="more-36216"></span></p> <p>Sen. Eric Burlison (R-Battlefield) filed Senate Bill 39 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/SB39/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB39</a>) on Dec. 1. Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any entity or person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.</p> <p>Last Tuesday, the Senate General Laws Committee held a hearing on the bill. Burlison testified, predicting that President-Elect Joe Biden’s administration will push for gun control. “Gun bans directly, magazine bans, attacks on private gun manufacturers, red flag laws and restrictions on individual citizens from buying firearms,” Burlison said.</p> <p>Nobody testified in opposition to the bill, but <a href="https://www.missourinet.com/2021/01/20/missouri-senators-hear-testimony-about-second-amendment-preservation-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to MissouriNet</a>, there was written testimony opposing the measure.</p> <p>Today, the committee took up the bill in Executive Session, where it was given a Do Pass recommendation with a 5-1 vote.</p> <p>A similar bill, <a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/HB85/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB85</a>, had its first hearing on the House side today, and is scheduled for an Executive Session in the House General Laws Committee on Thursday.</p> <p><strong>DETAILS OF THE LEGISLATION</strong></p> <p>The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:</p> <ul> <li>taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;</li> <li>any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.</li> </ul> <p>The proposed law defines “law-abiding citizen” as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.”</p> <p>Under the proposed law, infringement on the right to keep and bear arms would include the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Pres. Trump’s <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/10/states-should-nullify-trumps-unconstitutional-bump-stock-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bump-stock ban</a>, proposed federal “red-flag laws,” and any future gun control schemes implemented by the federal government.</p> <p>The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.</p> <blockquote><p>“Sovereign, official, or qualified immunity shall not be an affirmative defense in such actions.”</p></blockquote> <p>The bill also includes provisions that would apply to federal agents who knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringing acts identified in the law, or who give material aid and support to such enforcement efforts.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.</p> <p>In other words, Missouri law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in Missouri law enforcement again.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Missouri can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <div class="o9v6fnle cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q"> <div dir="auto">SB39 will now go to the Senate calendar for consideration by the full Senate.</div> </div> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/missouri-senate-committee-passes-bill-to-take-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/">Missouri Senate Committee Passes Bill to Take on Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills 2nd Amendment Preservation Act Federal Gun Control HB85 Missouri SB39 Mike Maharrey South Carolina Bills Would Take on Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/south-carolina-bills-would-take-on-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:5c124ebc-a91f-c1f8-e5e3-abb4ac825348 Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:12:51 +0000 <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/south-carolina-bills-would-take-on-federal-gun-control/">South Carolina Bills Would Take on Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>COLUMBIA</strong>, S.C. (Jan. 26, 2021) &#8211; Two bills filed in the South Carolina House would set the foundation to end enforcement of federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.<span id="more-35996"></span></p> <p>Rep Stewart Jones (R- Laurens) filed House Bill 3042 (<a href="https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=3042&amp;session=124&amp;summary=B" target="_blank" rel="noopener">H3042</a>) on Dec. 9. The bill would prohibit enforcement of future federal gun control by banning any &#8220;personnel or property of this State, or any political subdivision of this State&#8221; from enforcing any “federal, state, or local act, law, order, rule, ordinance or regulation which restricts an individual&#8217;s constitutional right to keep and bear arms” enacted after January 2021.</p> <p>State public funds would also be prohibited from use in enforcing such federal gun regulations.</p> <p>Rep. Doug Gilliam (R- Buffalo) also filed House Bill 3119 (<a href="https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=3119&amp;session=124&amp;summary=B" target="_blank" rel="noopener">H3119</a>) on Dec 9. It would prohibit the enforcement of &#8220;illegal gun laws&#8221; by state officials, which it defines to be “any federal, state, or local act, law, order, rule, ordinance or regulation which restricts an individual&#8217;s constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The bill includes a list of specific actions that would count as a restriction, including the following:</p> <ol> <li>a tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services on the purchase or ownership of those items by citizens;</li> <li>a registration or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;</li> <li>a registration or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;</li> <li>an act forbidding the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by citizens of the legal age of eighteen and over, other than pursuant to federal law background check requirements for transfers or purchases through federal firearms license dealers;</li> <li>an act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from citizens;</li> <li> a prohibition, regulation, or use restriction related to the ownership or the constitutionality guaranteed lawful use or carry of nonfully automatic firearms; and</li> <li>a prohibition, regulation, or use restriction limiting hand grips, stocks, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts, magazine capacity, bump stocks, suppressors, or types of ammunition available for sale, possession, or use by citizens.</li> </ol> <p>Under H3119, infringement on the right to keep and bear arms should include the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Pres. Trump’s <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/10/states-should-nullify-trumps-unconstitutional-bump-stock-ban/">bump-stock ban</a>, proposed federal “red-flag laws,” and any future gun control schemes implemented by the federal government.</p> <p>The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court for up to two thousand dollars:</p> <blockquote><p>“Sovereign, official, and qualified immunity are not affirmative defenses in cases pursuant to this section.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of South Carolina can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>Both bills were referred to the <a href="https://www.scstatehouse.gov/committee.php?chamber=H#jud" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House Committee on Judiciary</a> where they must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/south-carolina-bills-would-take-on-federal-gun-control/">South Carolina Bills Would Take on Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills firearms H3042 H3119 second amendment South Carolina TJ Martinell How the Washington Administration Responded to an “Insurrection” https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/26/how-the-washington-administration-responded-to-an-insurrection/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:75054d88-b473-4025-6094-f23df0b53090 Tue, 26 Jan 2021 18:11:51 +0000 <p>The new federal government didn't respond to the so-called Whiskey Rebellion with crackdowns on civil liberties to "prevent another rebellion" as many seem to want to do today.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/26/how-the-washington-administration-responded-to-an-insurrection/">How the Washington Administration Responded to an “Insurrection”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>The recent protests and storming of the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6 produced a hysterical reaction from both pundits and the federal government. This contrasts wildly with the response to an actual rebellion during the Republic’s early days.</p> <p>The new federal government didn&#8217;t respond to the so-called Whiskey Rebellion with crackdowns on civil liberties to &#8220;prevent another rebellion&#8221; as many seem to want to do today.</p> <p>In 1794 Kentucky and Pennsylvania farmers took up arms in opposition to a federal whiskey excise tax. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/george-washington-and-the-whiskey-rebellion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Whiskey Rebellion</a> concluded with President George Washington calling up the militia to suppress the rebels, who dispersed before any real fighting occurred.</p> <p>Interpretations of the rebellion vary. Some view Washington’s decision as a vital move to preserve the then-fledgling federal government&#8217;s legitimacy after Shay’s Rebellion eight years prior had prompted the founders to replace the Articles of Confederation in favor of a stronger central government. However, others consider the rebels as patriots resisting an unjust tax on whiskey, which was frequently used as a means of exchange in frontier areas where coinage was scarce.</p> <p>To be sure, Washington reacted initially in a manner <a href="https://www.ttb.gov/public_info/whisky_rebellion.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">utterly restrained</a> compared to what we could expect today. Even after invoking the Militia Act of 1792 allowing him to call up state militiamen, he sent state officials to the rebels and tried to reach a peaceful resolution, without success.</p> <p>However, a separate issue to look at is the aftermath of the rebellion. Roughly 150 men were arrested and tried for treason. Yet only two men were found guilty, and they were later pardoned by Washington himself.</p> <p>In his <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/seventh-annual-address-congress" target="_blank" rel="noopener">seventh state of the union address</a> Washington defended his decision:</p> <blockquote><p><em>For though I shall always think it a sacred duty to exercise with firmness and energy the constitutional powers with which I am vested, yet it appears to me no less consistent with the public good than it is with my personal feelings to mingle in the operations of Government every degree of moderation and tenderness which the national justice, dignity, and safety may permit.</em></p></blockquote> <p>As historian Carol Berkin <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mZyf1CnKh0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted in a 2017 lecture</a>, “not a single person really ever served a jail term. Everybody was given amnesty. Nobody was cruelly beaten or destroyed. But the power, the authority of the federal government was upheld.”</p> <p>Perhaps Washington and other Founders holding office realized the appearance of hypocrisy for condemning men as traitors who acted as they had just a few decades earlier.</p> <p>At the same time, it’s not so much what Washington and Congress did as what <em>they didn’t do or even propose to do</em>. Reading through diaries, letters, and correspondence from founders ranging from <a href="https://washingtonpapers.org/editions/letterpress/presidential-series/volume-16-may-september-1794/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">George Washington</a> and Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Jefferson written during the rebellion, there is no instance I could find in which they advocated or suggested the civil rights restrictions such as firearms ownership or freedom of speech and assembly. There was no call for a permanent standing army. This is on top of the fact that nothing was actually proposed and then enacted.</p> <p>In fact, Jefferson wrote sympathetically of the rebellion in a <a href="http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/mss/mtj/mtj1/020/020_0314_0317.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dec. 28, 1794 letter</a> to John Adams, calling the whiskey tax “an infernal one. The first error was to admit it by the Constitution.”</p> <p>He wrote further that hatred of the law in those states was “universal, and has now associated to it a detestation of the government; &amp; that separation which perhaps was a very distant &amp; problematical event, is now near, &amp; certain, &amp; determined in the mind of every man.”</p> <p>Not surprisingly, Jefferson would later repeal the excise tax when elected president.</p> <p>Even federalists like Alexander Hamilton in ways sought to avoid violence that might have demonstrated the power of the new government, albeit he did advocate hanging some of the rebel leaders. In an <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/?q=whiskey%20rebellion%20Author%3A%22Hamilton%2C%20Alexander%22&amp;s=1111311111&amp;r=9" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Aug. 29, 1794 letter</a> to Maryland Governor Thomas Lee, he wrote of avoiding “the necessity of using force now &amp; at future periods” by keeping the militia deployed in good morale.</p> <p>In all the correspondence Hamilton had with George Washington, not one advocated for the confiscation of firearms from the regions where the rebellion had occurred. Nor was there a call to restrict firearm ownership of any type among the general population to prevent similar rebellions in the future. The federal government didn&#8217;t use the &#8220;crisis&#8221; as an excuse to enlarge itself, as some sought with the Alien and Sedition Act passed four years later</p> <p>While Washington’s best opportunity to make himself a military dictator occurred just after the War of Independence ended with him still in charge of the continental army, the Whiskey Rebellion theoretically could have afforded him another chance – one that he likely never even contemplated.</p> <p>The comparatively restrained response by Washington to the rebellion demonstrated that it is not necessary to take away liberties to maintain civil order or &#8220;keep us safe.&#8221;</p> <p>Writing in reaction to Shay&#8217;s Rebellion, Thomas Jefferson <a href="https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/little-rebellionquotation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote a letter</a> to James Madison saying rebellions were a &#8220;medecine necessary for the sound health of government&#8221; and that &#8220;honest republican governors&#8221; should be &#8220;so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much.&#8221;</p> <p>What many people fail to grasp is that rebellions and insurrections aren&#8217;t always found in physical confrontations, and the &#8220;medicine necessary for the sound health of government&#8221; can be applied just as effectively through the nullification of unconstitutional federal acts. Incidentally, Jefferson referred to nullification as the &#8220;rightful remedy.&#8221;</p> <p>The histrionic and totalitarian rhetoric coming from the federal government today over a handful of people storming the U.S. Capitol demonstrates how fragile its perceived legitimacy is today. It is a government that overreacts to minor incidents because deep down its members are terrified of any meaningful defiance or resistance to their rule.</p> <p>They realize how easily D.C. tyranny could end if the American people were united in common opposition to unconstitutional actions in a manner that reduced their power, rather than give the largest government in the world the further pretext to expand it.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/26/how-the-washington-administration-responded-to-an-insurrection/">How the Washington Administration Responded to an “Insurrection”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> George Washington History federal-power protests Whiskey Rebellion TJ Martinell New Mexico Bill Would Create State Process to End Qualified Immunity https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-mexico-bill-would-create-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3ddcdd25-57f8-a076-eedb-7b2e3e3194d7 Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:29:29 +0000 <p>A bill introduced in the New Mexico House would create a process to sue police officers in state court for using excessive force or taking other actions that violate individual rights without the possibility of “qualified immunity” as a defense.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-mexico-bill-would-create-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity/">New Mexico Bill Would Create State Process to End Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>SANTA FE</strong>, N.M. (Jan. 26, 2021) &#8211; A bill introduced in the New Mexico House would create a process to sue police officers in state court for using excessive force or taking other actions that violate individual rights without the possibility of “qualified immunity” as a defense.<span id="more-36178"></span></p> <p>Rep. Georgene Louis (D) and House Speaker Brian Egolf (D) introduced House Bill 4 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NM/bill/HB4/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB4</a>) on Jan. 19. The legislation would create a cause of action in state courts to sue police officers and other public officials who &#8220;subject or cause to be subjected any resident of New Mexico or person within the state to deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured pursuant to the constitution of New Mexico.&#8221; HB4 specifically excludes qualified immunity as a defense in such cases.</p> <p><strong>The Process </strong></p> <p>Typically, people sue police for using excessive force or other types of misconduct through the federal court system under the U.S. Bill of Rights. But <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/13/how-federal-courts-gave-us-qualified-immunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">federal courts created a qualified immunity defense out of thin air</a>, making it nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers responsible for actions taken in the line of duty. In order to move ahead with a suit, the plaintiff must establish that it was “clearly established” that the officer’s action was unconstitutional. The “clearly established” test erects an almost insurmountable hurdle to those trying to prove excessive force or a violation of their rights.</p> <p>Passage of HB4 would create an alternative path in state court with no qualified immunity hurdle to clear.</p> <p>The language in HB4 is similar to a law recently <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/signed-as-law-colorado-creates-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity-for-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed in Colorado</a>.</p> <p><strong>In Practice</strong></p> <p>It remains unclear how the state legal process will play out in practice.</p> <p>The first question is whether people will actually utilize the state courts instead of the federal process. Under the original constitutional system, it would have never been a federal issue to begin with. Regulation of police powers was clearly delegated to the states, not the federal government. But with the advent of the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>, people reflexively run to federal courts. But by removing the qualified immunity hurdle, it should incentivize people to take advantage of the state system.</p> <p>The second question is if police officers will be able to have cases removed to federal jurisdiction in order to take advantage of qualified immunity.</p> <p>State and local law enforcement officers working <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/16/joint-law-enforcement-task-forces-are-creating-a-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">on joint state/federal task forces</a> almost certainly would. They are effectively treated as federal agents.</p> <p>For New Mexico law enforcement officers not operating with a federal task force, it seems unlikely they will be able to remove the case to federal court initially, but that door could open on appeal.</p> <p>One attorney the Tenth Amendment Center talked to said that it might be possible for officers to have their case removed to federal court to consider U.S. constitutional ramifications. But he said even then, he thinks federal courts would have to respect the state law prohibiting qualified immunity as a defense. The federal court would likely have to apply the state law as the state intended, even though the federal court might well be able to decide whether or not a U.S. constitutional violation had taken place.</p> <p>Regardless, a process operating totally under the state constitution will be much less likely to end up in federal court than a process that depends on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The state process will make it more difficult for police to simply side-step civil suits by declaring sovereign immunity up front.</p> <p><strong>Moving Forward </strong></p> <p>The Supreme Court shows no interest in rolling back its qualified immunity doctrine. In fact, the High Court recently rejected several cases that would have allowed it to revisit the issue. For instance, the SCOTUS let stand an <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715566.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eleventh Circuit decision</a> granting immunity to a police officer who shot a ten-year-old child in the back of the knee, while repeatedly attempting to shoot a pet dog that wasn’t threatening anyone.</p> <p>Congress could prohibit qualified immunity. <a href="https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-end-qualified-immunity" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A bill</a> sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.) and  Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) during the last Congress would have done just that, but it was never taken up. Congress does not have a good track recorded on reining in government power.</p> <p>The best path forward is to bypass the federal system as Colorado has already done and New Mexico will consider</p> <p>Other states should follow their lead and create state processes to hold their police officers accountable. With the evolution of qualified immunity, the federal process is an abject failure. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote in the 1986 case <em>Malley v. Briggs</em>, qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-immunity-scotus-snapshot/six-takeaways-from-reuters-investigation-of-police-violence-and-qualified-immunity-idUSKBN22K1AM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Reuters</em> called it</a> “a highly effective shield in thousands of lawsuits seeking to hold cops accountable for using excessive force.”</p> <p>Attorney and activist Dave Roland called on Missouri to adopt a similar process in <a href="https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/dave-roland-no-more-excuses-hold-law-enforcement-officials-accountable/article_9d627981-1950-5858-abd9-d14cf587def6.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an op-ed published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>A consensus has developed — crossing all party and ideological lines — for the proposition that qualified immunity is an evil that should be undone. At the federal level either the Supreme Court or Congress could undo it, but thus far neither has seen fit to act. Justice in Missouri, however, does not need to wait on Washington — the Legislature can and should adopt a Missouri statute that allows citizens to sue government officials who have violated citizens’ constitutional rights.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB4 was referred to the <a href="https://www.nmlegis.gov/Committee/Standing_Committee?CommitteeCode=HSEIC" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House State Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-mexico-bill-would-create-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity/">New Mexico Bill Would Create State Process to End Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Qualified Immunity State Bills Courts HB4 Incorporation Doctrine New Mexico Police Mike Maharrey Maryland Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/maryland-bill-would-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:80725482-d148-ed37-7422-7c5dcf4f9b34 Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:23:03 +0000 <p>The bill would not only legalize personal use of marijuana (including paraphernalia), but also establish licensure of businesses for cultivation and sales, as regulated by the state. Adults - over the age of 21 - could legally possess up to 2 ounces of marijuana and would be able to cultivate up to six plants, as long as they are not accessible by minors. HB32 would also allow for the expungement of some previous cannabis convictions.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/maryland-bill-would-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Maryland Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>ANNAPOLIS</strong>, Md. (Jan. 26, 2021) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Maryland House would legalize marijuana despite federal prohibition.<span id="more-36127"></span></p> <p>Del. Jazz Lewis (D &#8211; Prince George) introduced House Bill 32 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MD/text/HB32/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB32</a>) on Jan 6. The bill would not only legalize personal use of marijuana (including paraphernalia), but also establish licensure of businesses for cultivation and sales, as regulated by the state. Adults &#8211; over the age of 21 &#8211; could legally possess up to 2 ounces of marijuana and would be able to cultivate up to six plants, as long as they are not accessible by minors. HB32 would also allow for the expungement of some previous cannabis convictions.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL PROHIBITION</strong></p> <p>While marijuana has become more widely accepted across the U.S., the federal government still claims it is illegal. As we’ve seen with immigration sanctuary cities, when state and local enforcement ends, the federal government has an extremely difficult time enforcing their acts.</p> <p>Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>Maryland’s legalization of personal use and its medical marijuana program, remove a layer of laws prohibiting and punishing the possession and use of marijuana. The passage of HB32 would expand that, but federal prohibition remains in place.  This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly annual budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution either. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Maryland joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit i</a>n 2019. South Dakota, New Jersey, Montana and Arizona all <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/04/thirty-six-and-counting-more-states-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legalized recreational marijuana through ballot measures</a> in the 2020 election and Mississippi legalized medicinal cannabis.</p> <p>With 36 states now allowing cannabis for medical use, and 15 legalizing for recreational adult-use the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.</p> <p>The push to legalize marijuana in Maryland underscores another important strategic reality. Once a state removes restrictions on marijuana – even if only in a very limited way – it tends to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand expands. That creates pressure to further relax state law. These new laws represent a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB32 has been referred to the <a href="https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/com/05jud.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House Judiciary Committee</a> where a hearing is currently scheduled for February 16, at 1:30 pm. It must pass with a majority to move forward in the legislative process.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/maryland-bill-would-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Maryland Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis HB32 Legalization Marijuana Maryland Amanda Bowers New Hampshire Bill Would Set Foundation to Block Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-hampshire-bill-would-set-foundation-to-block-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:40196a01-6cf6-2906-54c4-8044c7b163e3 Mon, 25 Jan 2021 23:33:50 +0000 <p>A bill introduced in the New Hampshire House would empower the governor to stop unconstitutional foreign deployments of the state’s National Guard troops. Passage into law would take a step toward restoring the founders’ constitutional framework for a state-federal balance regarding the state militia.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-hampshire-bill-would-set-foundation-to-block-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/">New Hampshire Bill Would Set Foundation to Block Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>CONCORD</strong>, N.H. (Jan. 25, 2021) &#8211; A bill introduced in the New Hampshire House would empower the governor to stop unconstitutional foreign deployments of the state’s National Guard troops. Passage into law would take a step toward restoring the founders’ constitutional framework for a state-federal balance regarding the state militia.<span id="more-36179"></span></p> <p>Rep. Kevin Craig (R-Lancaster) introduced House Bill 580 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB580/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB580</a>) on Jan. 12. The legislation would prohibit placing New Hampshire National Guard troops under federal control for overseas deployments unless the governor determines they are being deployed in a manner consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The proposed law would require the governor to examine every federal order that places the New Hampshire National Guard on active duty.</p> <blockquote> <p class="csF0A1D375"><span class="csDD5E5F52">The governor shall withhold or withdraw approval of the transfer of the national guard to federal control for overseas deployment in the absence of:</span></p> <p class="csF0A1D375"><span class="csDD5E5F52">(a)  A military invasion of the United States;</span></p> <p class="csF0A1D375"><span class="csDD5E5F52">(b)  An insurrection; or</span></p> <p class="csF0A1D375"><span class="csDD5E5F52">(c)  A calling forth of the guard by the federal government in a manner provided for by Congress to execute the laws of the Union, provided that said laws were made in pursuance of the delegated powers in the Constitution of the United States.</span></p> </blockquote> <p>If the governor determines that the order is not Constitutional based on those criteria, he or she would have to &#8220;take all appropriate action to prevent the national guard from being placed or kept on federal active duty.&#8221;</p> <p><strong>IN PRACTICE</strong></p> <p>National Guard troops have played significant roles in all modern overseas conflicts, with over 650,000 deployed since 2001. <em>Military.com</em> <a href="https://www.military.com/national-guard-birthday/national-guard-service-in-the-war-on-terror.html">reports</a> that “Guard and Reserve units made up about 45 percent of the total force sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and received about 18.4 percent of the casualties.” More specifically, New Hampshire National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia and elsewhere.</p> <p>Since none of these missions fall under the three criteria constitutionally necessary to call up the militia, the New Hampshire Defend the Guard Act would have prohibited those deployments.</p> <p><b>BACKGROUND</b></p> <p>Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.” Through the Dick Act of 1903, Congress organized the militia into today’s National Guard, limiting the part of the militia that could be called into federal service rather than the “entire body of people,” which makes up the totality of the “militia.” Thus, today’s National Guard is governed by the “militia clauses” of the Constitution, and this view is <a href="https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&amp;did=439888">confirmed by the National Guard</a> itself.</p> <p>Clause 15 delegates to Congress the power to provide for “calling forth the militia” in three situations only: 1) to execute the laws of the union, 2) to suppress insurrections, and 3) to repel invasions.</p> <p>During state ratifying conventions, proponents of the Constitution, including James Madison and Edmund Randolph, repeatedly assured the people that this power to call forth the militia into federal service would be limited to those very specific situations, and not for general purposes, like helping victims of a disease outbreak or engaging in “kinetic military actions.”</p> <p><b>RETURNING TO THE CONSTITUTION</b></p> <p>The founding generation was careful to ensure the president wouldn’t have the power to drag the United States into endless wars. James Madison made this clear in <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_11s8.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a letter to Thomas Jefferson</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, &amp; most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.</p></blockquote> <p>Congress has abrogated its responsibility and allowed the president to exercise almost complete discretion when it comes to war. Passage of Defend the Guard legislation would pressure Congress to do its constitutional duty.</p> <p>West Virginia Rep. Pat McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer in Afghanistan and has sponsored similar legislation in his state.</p> <blockquote><p>“For decades, the power of war has long been abused by this supreme executive, and unfortunately our men and women in uniform have been sent off into harm’s way over and over,” he said. “If the U.S. Congress is unwilling to reclaim its constitutional obligation, then the states themselves must act to correct the erosion of constitutional law.”</p></blockquote> <p>Passage of Defend the Guard would also force the federal government to only use the Guard for the three expressly-delegated purposes in the Constitution, and at other times to remain where the Guard belongs, at home, supporting and protecting their home state.</p> <p>While getting this bill passed won’t be easy and will face fierce opposition from the establishment, it certainly is, as Daniel Webster once noted, “one of the reasons state governments even exist.”</p> <p>Webster made this observation in an 1814 speech on the floor of Congress where he urged actions similar to the Oklahoma Defend the Guard Act. He said, “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT<br /> </strong></p> <p>HB580 was referred to the <a href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H25">State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee</a>. A public hearing is scheduled for Jan. 29 at 10:15 a.m. A do-pass recommendation by the committee would increase its chance for passage in the House.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-hampshire-bill-would-set-foundation-to-block-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/">New Hampshire Bill Would Set Foundation to Block Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Defend the Guard State Bills HB580 New Hampshire War Powers Mike Maharrey Virginia Committee Passes Bill to Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/virginia-committee-passes-bill-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f96f9137-45ae-25bb-5b9b-e4b06496bb50 Mon, 25 Jan 2021 23:06:55 +0000 <p>The legislation would legalize marijuana for adult use. Under the proposed law, adults 21 and older could purchase and possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to four plants. The legislation would also create a regulatory scheme for the commercial cultivation and retail sale of cannabis. A newly created independent agency would have rulemaking authority and would be responsible for issuing licenses.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/virginia-committee-passes-bill-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Virginia Committee Passes Bill to Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>RICHMOND</strong>, Va. (Jan. 25, 2021) – Last Friday, a Virginia Senate committee passed a bill that would legalize marijuana in the state despite federal prohibition.<span id="more-36189"></span><span id="more-36084"></span></p> <p>Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) and Sen. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) introduced Senate Bill 1406 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/SB1406" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB1406</a>) on Jan. 13. The legislation would legalize marijuana for adult use. Under the proposed law, adults 21 and older could purchase and possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to four plants. The legislation would also create a regulatory scheme for the commercial cultivation and retail sale of cannabis. A newly created independent agency would have rulemaking authority and would be responsible for issuing licenses.</p> <p>On Jan. 22, the Senate Rehabilitation and Social Services Committee passed SB1406 with some amendments <a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/rollcall/SB1406/id/989609" target="_blank" rel="noopener">by an 8-7 vote</a>.</p> <p>SB1406 also includes expungement provisions. People with prior marijuana convictions would have their records automatically expunged. Individuals currently serving sentences for cannabis-related offenses would have a process to petition for a resentencing hearing.</p> <p>Amendments included the addition of safety awareness and best practices guidance provisions for homegrown cannabis. Another amendment stipulated that local jurisdictions would have to opt out of allowing cannabis businesses to operate in their areas. The original language required local jurisdictions to opt in.</p> <p>Gov. Northam participated in the unveiling of the bill and has expressed support for marijuana legalization.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Virginia <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/virginia-becomes-34th-state-with-legal-medical-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">established a viable medical marijuana program</a> last year and also <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/now-in-effect-virginia-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decriminalized marijuana possession</a> despite ongoing federal prohibition.</p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>The legalization of marijuana for personal use in Virginia would take the next step and removes another layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state even though federal prohibition would remain in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Virginia is one of a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit i</a>n 2019. During the November election, <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/04/thirty-six-and-counting-more-states-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Arizona, Montana, South Dakota and New Jersey legalized marijuana</a> for recreational use.</p> <p>With 36 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, and 15 legalizing for adult recreational use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats.</p> <p>The push to legalize marijuana for personal use in Virginia demonstrates another important strategic reality. Once a state legalizes marijuana – even if only in a very limited way for medical purposes – it tends to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand grows. That creates pressure to further relax state law. These new laws represent a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB1406 now moves to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/virginia-committee-passes-bill-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Virginia Committee Passes Bill to Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis Marijuana SB1406 Virginia Mike Maharrey Alaska Bill Would Would Take First Step to Legalize Raw Milk https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/alaska-bill-would-would-take-first-step-to-legalize-raw-milk/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:b13350d1-b55e-b535-8496-6d940c05f5c6 Mon, 25 Jan 2021 22:59:58 +0000 <p>A bill filed in the Alaska House would legalize herd share agreements for the distribution of raw milk in the state. Passage into law would take an important first step toward rejecting a federal prohibition scheme in practice and effect.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/alaska-bill-would-would-take-first-step-to-legalize-raw-milk/">Alaska Bill Would Would Take First Step to Legalize Raw Milk</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>JUNEAU</strong>, Alaska (Jan. 25, 2021) A bill filed in the Alaska House would legalize herd share agreements for the distribution of raw milk in the state. Passage into law would take an important first step toward rejecting a federal prohibition scheme in practice and effect.<span id="more-36180"></span></p> <p>Rep. Geran Tarr introduced House Bill 22 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AK/text/HB22/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB22</a>) on Jan 8. The proposed law would legalize raw milk shares through part ownership of livestock, commonly known as herd shares. Under the law, any individual willing to pay another individual for the upkeep of milk-producing livestock would also be able to share raw milk and other things produced from the raw milk of those shared animals.</p> <p>Currently, in Alaska, it is illegal to sell raw milk to the public. It can only be sold to a milk processing plant, or for animal food.</p> <p>Passage of HB22 would take the first step toward legalizing unpasteurized milk in the state. While limited in nature, allowing raw milk distribution through herd sharing creates a great opportunity to establish a market, and will demonstrate and stimulate demand for raw milk. As more people engage in the marketplace, more people will learn about the benefits of unpasteurized milk. That stimulates demand. Simply cracking the door can begin a sort of economic feedback loop that will rapidly expand the market. When that happens, lawmakers will feel pressure to further loosen regulations.</p> <p><strong>Impact on Federal Prohibition</strong></p> <p>FDA officials insist that unpasteurized milk poses a health risk because of its susceptibility to contamination from cow manure, a source of E. coli.</p> <p>“It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed,” agency spokeswoman Tamara N. Ward said in November 2011.</p> <p>The FDA’s position represents more than a matter of opinion. In 1987, the feds implemented 21 CFR 1240.61(a), providing that, <em>“no person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized.”</em></p> <p>Not only do the feds ban the transportation of raw milk across state lines; they also claim the authority to ban unpasteurized milk <em>within the borders of a state</em>.</p> <p>“It is within HHS’s authority…to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well,” FDA officials wrote in response to a <a href="http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund </a>lawsuit against the agency over the interstate ban.</p> <p>The FDA clearly wants complete prohibition of raw milk and some insiders say it’s only a matter of time before the feds try to institute an absolute ban. Armed raids by FDA agents on companies like Rawsome Foods back in 2011 and Amish farms over the last few years also indicate this scenario may not be too far off.</p> <p>When states allow the sale of raw milk within their borders, it takes an important step toward nullifying this federal prohibition scheme.</p> <p>As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, an intrastate ban becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway. The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages the market and nullifies federal prohibition in effect.</p> <p>We’ve seen this demonstrated dramatically in states that have legalized industrial hemp. When they authorized production, farmers began growing industrial hemp, even in the face of a federal ban. Despite facing the possibility of federal prosecution, some growers were still willing to step into the void and begin cultivating the plant once the state removed its barriers.</p> <p>In the same way, removing state barriers to raw milk consumption, sale and production would undoubtedly spur the creation of new markets for unpasteurized dairy products, no matter what the feds claim the power to do.</p> <p>It could ultimately nullify the interstate ban as well. If all 50 states allow raw milk, markets within the states could easily grow to the point that local sales would render the federal ban on interstate commerce pointless. And history indicates the feds do not have the resources to stop people from transporting raw milk across state lines – especially if multiple states start legalizing it. Growing markets will quickly overwhelm any federal enforcement attempts.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>At the time of this report, HB22 had not been referred to a committee. Once it receives a committee assignment, it will have to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/alaska-bill-would-would-take-first-step-to-legalize-raw-milk/">Alaska Bill Would Would Take First Step to Legalize Raw Milk</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Raw Milk State Bills Alaska FDA food freedom HB22 unpasteurized milk Amanda Bowers Washington Committee Passes Bill to Prohibit No-Knock Warrants and Limit Federal Militarization of Police https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/washington-committee-passes-bill-to-prohibit-no-knock-warrants-and-limit-federal-militarization-of-police/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3ae2f836-0afb-adc5-40ee-bd9f830112aa Mon, 25 Jan 2021 22:33:33 +0000 <p>a Washington House committee passed a bill that would prohibit no-knock warrants and put limits on state and local law enforcement agencies’ ability to acquire certain military equipment from federal programs.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/washington-committee-passes-bill-to-prohibit-no-knock-warrants-and-limit-federal-militarization-of-police/">Washington Committee Passes Bill to Prohibit No-Knock Warrants and Limit Federal Militarization of Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>OLYMPIA</strong>, Wash. (Jan. 25, 2021) – On Friday, a Washington House committee passed a bill that would prohibit no-knock warrants and put limits on state and local law enforcement agencies’ ability to acquire certain military equipment from federal programs.<span id="more-36193"></span></p> <p>Rep. Jesse Johnson (D-Federal Way) filed House Bill 1054 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/bill/HB1054/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1054</a>) last month, and it has garnered the support of 35 cosponsors as of the time of publication. The legislation would make numerous policing reforms, including provisions to prohibit no-knock warrants and limit the type of military equipment police can obtain through federal programs.</p> <p>On Jan. 22, the House Committee on Public Safety passed HB1054 with some amendments. The bill passed on partisan lines, <a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/rollcall/HB1054/id/989931">with an 8-4 vote</a>.</p> <p><strong>NO-KNOCK WARRANTS</strong></p> <p>One provision in HB1054 would effectively band “no-knock” warrants. Under the proposed law, police would be prohibited from seeking and courts could not issue a search or arrest warrant granting an express exception to the requirement for the officer to provide notice of his or her office and purpose when executing the warrant.</p> <p>Passage of HB1054 would effectively nullify and make irrelevant several Supreme Court opinions that give police across the U.S. legal cover for conducting no-knock raids.</p> <p>In the 1995 case <em><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15506865603077276139&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wilson v. Arkansas</a></em>, the Supreme Court established that police must peacefully knock, announce their presence, and allow time for the occupants to open the door before entering a home to serve a warrant. But the Court allowed for “exigent circumstance” exceptions if police fear violence, if the suspect is a flight risk, or if officers fear the suspect will destroy evidence.</p> <p>As journalist <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/03/no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-was-illegal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Radley Balko notes</a>, police utilized this exception to the fullest extent, “simply declaring in search warrant affidavits that <i>all</i> drug dealers are a threat to dispose of evidence, flee or assault the officers at the door.”</p> <p>The SCOTUS eliminated this blanket exception in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10920539616941250099&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i>Richards v. Wisconsin</i></a>  (1997) requiring police to show why a specific individual is a threat to dispose of evidence, commit an act of violence or flee from police. But even with the opinion, the bar for obtaining a no-knock warrant remains low.</p> <blockquote><p>“In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a <strong>reasonable suspicion</strong> that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” [Emphasis added]</p></blockquote> <p>Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low legal bar to meet. Through this exception, police can justify no-knock entry on any warrant application. In effect, the parameters in the SCOTUS ruling make no-knock the norm instead of the exception.</p> <p>A third Supreme Court ruling effectively eliminated the consequences for violating the “knock and announce” requirement even without a no-knock warrant. In <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1360.pdf">Hudson v. Michigan</a></em> (2006), the High Court held that evidence seized in violation of knock and announce was not subject to the exclusionary rule. In other words, police could still use the evidence in court even though they technically gathered it illegally.</p> <p>Significantly, were it not for the dubious “<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>” made up by the Supreme Crout based on the 14th Amendment that purportedly empowers the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, these cases would have never gone to federal court and we wouldn’t have these blanket rules.</p> <p>Without specific restrictions from the state, police officers generally operate within the parameters set by the High Court. By passing restrictions on no-knock warrants, states set standards that go beyond the Supreme Court limits and in effect, nullify the SCOTUS opinion.</p> <p><strong>POLICE MILITARIZATION</strong></p> <p>HB1054 would also prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from acquiring or using “military equipment.” The bill defines the following as “military equipment.”</p> <ul> <li>firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater</li> <li>machine guns</li> <li>silencers</li> <li>armed or armored drones</li> <li>armed vessels</li> <li>armed vehicles</li> <li>armed aircraft</li> <li>tanks</li> <li>mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles</li> <li>long-range acoustic hailing devices</li> <li>rockets and rocket launchers</li> <li>bayonets</li> <li>grenades and grenade launchers</li> <li>missiles</li> <li>directed energy systems</li> <li>electromagnetic spectrum weapons</li> </ul> <p>The original bill would have prohibited the acquisition of armored vehicles or helicopters, but that was amended out of the bill by the committee.</p> <p>The legislation applies both to the well-known 1033 program, along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government, as well as federal programs that fund the acquisition of surplus military equipment.</p> <p>Any law enforcement agency in possession of military equipment as of the effective date of the law would be required to return the equipment to the federal agency from which it was acquired, or destroy the equipment by December 31, 2022.</p> <p>While the enactment of HB1054 would not end the militarization of local cops, it would keep some dangerous weapons out of the hands of police officers.</p> <p><strong>Federal Surplus and Grant Money</strong></p> <p>Through the federal 1033 Program, local police departments procure military-grade weapons. Police can also get military equipment through the Department of Homeland Security via the (DHS) “Homeland Security Grant Program.” The DHS <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/04/12/dhs-announces-funding-opportunity-fiscal-year-2019-preparedness-grants#:~:text=Homeland%20Security%20Grant%20Program%20(HSGP,of%20terrorism%20and%20other%20threats." data-et-has-event-already="true">doles out over $1 billion in counterterrorism funds</a> to state and local police each year. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon-funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”</p> <p>In August 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/28/executive-order-takes-window-dressing-off-police-militarization-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gave a push to local police militarization</a>. Trump’s action rescinded an <a href="https://www.bja.gov/publications/LEEWG_Report_Final.pdf">Obama-era policy </a>meant to provide greater transparency and oversight around the Department of Defense 1033 program and other federal resources that provide military weapons to local police.</p> <p>Passage of HB1054 would limit Washington’s participation in federal police militarization programs.</p> <p><b>Command and Control</b></p> <p>Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the founders. They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’</p> <p>In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”</p> <p>By making it more difficult for local police to get this military-grade gear, they become less likely to cooperate with the feds, and it also removes incentives for partnerships. Passage of HB1054 would take a first step toward limiting police militarization in Washington State.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB1054 will now move to the full House for further consideration.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/washington-committee-passes-bill-to-prohibit-no-knock-warrants-and-limit-federal-militarization-of-police/">Washington Committee Passes Bill to Prohibit No-Knock Warrants and Limit Federal Militarization of Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Police State Bills 1033 Program HB1054 no-knock warrant Police Militarization Police-State Washington Mike Maharrey End the War on Yemen https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/end-the-war-on-yemen/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:a116a567-18be-b18a-f592-e8eaec74dc4d Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:35:49 +0000 <p>In what is likely the worst humanitarian disaster in the world right now, the U.S.-backed war on Yemen has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. Get an introduction to the history of that horrible civil war, the U.S. involvement, and some timeless advice warnings on entangling alliances from Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/end-the-war-on-yemen/">End the War on Yemen</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p>In what is likely the worst humanitarian disaster in the world right now, the U.S.-backed war on Yemen has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. On this episode &#8211; in support of the Day of Action calling for an end to the war in Yemen &#8211; get an introduction to the history of that horrible civil war, the U.S. involvement, and some timeless advice warnings on entangling alliances from Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: January 25, 2021 <span id="more-36194"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/UHQ61qUiumE?start=67" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yemeni_Civil_War.svg" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Image: Yemeni Civil War Factions</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Wiki: Saudi-led war</a></p> <p><a href="https://acleddata.com/2019/10/31/press-release-over-100000-reported-killed-in-yemen-war/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Armed Conflict Location &#038; Event Data Project</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Yemeni_Civil_War#United_States" rel="noopener" target="_blank">US Involvement</a></p> <p><a href="https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/first-inaugural-address-0" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson (4 Mar 1801)</a></p> <p><a href="https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-4-1809-first-inaugural-address" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Madison (4 Mar 1809)</a></p> <p><a href="https://news.antiwar.com/2020/12/23/trump-administration-moves-forward-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Dec 23 Sale: Raytheon</a></p> <p><a href="https://news.antiwar.com/2020/12/29/trump-administration-approves-290-million-bomb-sale-to-saudi-arabia/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Dec 29 sale: Boeing</a></p> <p><a href="https://yemendataproject.org/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Yemen Data Project &#8211; airstrikes</a></p> <p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">George Washington Farewell Address (19 Sept 1796)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.03902300/?st=text" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Paine &#8211; American Crisis No. 1 (Dec 1776)</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-012221:e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/nullify-they-dont-want-us-doing-600b0ec1f14084070cc828cd" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=799370720643909" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-012221:e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/t607af9tJJeb/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/14a61171-4df7-459f-be08-5a8ad5e9dade" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/b86e57b3-596e-4066-aa40-2befc8d19a64" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/883652377" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1nAKELDOeEYxL" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+mAH-d8fGg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> LBRY: <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter">https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/end-the-war-on-yemen/">End the War on Yemen</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Audio/Video Current Events Foreign Policy George Washington Path to Liberty Saudi Arabia war Yemen Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 35:34 In what is likely the worst humanitarian disaster in the world right now, the U.S.-backed war on Yemen has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. Get an introduction to the history of that horrible civil war, the U.S. involvement, In what is likely the worst humanitarian disaster in the world right now, the U.S.-backed war on Yemen has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. Get an introduction to the history of that horrible civil war, the U.S. involvement, and some timeless advice warnings on entangling alliances from Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington. They Should Just Scrap the Presidential Oath of Office https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/they-should-just-scrap-the-presidential-oath-of-office/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:840e09c3-9672-c47d-05a3-674df616501e Fri, 22 Jan 2021 22:51:16 +0000 <p>It's nothing but a ceremonialist lie in modern times.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/they-should-just-scrap-the-presidential-oath-of-office/">They Should Just Scrap the Presidential Oath of Office</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p>Why not just do away with the presidential oath of office? It&#8217;s nothing but a ceremonialist lie in modern times.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Presidential Oath is nothing but a ceremonial lie. We all know <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a> is not going to &quot;protect and defend&quot; the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Constitution</a>.<a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://t.co/ZPUB9cymCO">pic.twitter.com/ZPUB9cymCO</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1352304657176006657?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/12/whats-the-deal-with-executive-orders/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">What&#8217;s the Deal With Executive Orders?</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/30/executive-power-who-made-presidents-and-governors-kings/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Executive Power: Who Made Presidents and Governor&#8217;s King?</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/they-should-just-scrap-the-presidential-oath-of-office/">They Should Just Scrap the Presidential Oath of Office</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Audio/Video Executive Maharrey Minute Constitution Executive Orders Executive Power President Mike Maharrey The Most Essential Danger https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/22/the-most-essential-danger/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:d9745c23-d820-715f-edff-ed2f06f2cedb Fri, 22 Jan 2021 19:01:21 +0000 <p>The behemoth in D.C. will continue to grow until people begin to reject the notion of monopoly government. The first step - quit calling the 202 area code. Pretend D.C. doesn't exist. Concentrate your effort on state and local action. And work to nullify the feds into oblivion.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/22/the-most-essential-danger/">The Most Essential Danger</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>Anybody spending any time in the south knows all about Kudzu. The vine covers pretty much everything along some stretches of roadway in Georgia, Alabama and other southeastern states.</p> <p>Trees.</p> <p>Telephone poles.</p> <p>Abandoned cars.</p> <p>Originally introduced to the U.S. during the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia in 1876, the fast-growing vine quickly became popular. Japanese exhibitors planted a garden of Kudzu during the expo, and Americans were drawn to the large green leaves and fragrant blooms.</p> <p>During the Great Depression, the Soil Conservation Service promoted Kudzu for soil erosion control. Soon, Civilian Conservation Corps workers spread out across the southeast planting Kudzu. In the early 1940s, the government offered up to $8 an acre to farmers as an incentive to plant the vines in their fields. The hot humid climate proved ideal for the plant&#8217;s growth, and Kudzu began a march across the south like Sherman&#8217;s army.</p> <p>Turns out, it was a little too much of a &#8220;good&#8221; thing.</p> <p>Kudzu grows as much as a foot a day. Soon it began to overgrow everything, squeezing out native plants and damaging the environment it was meant to protect.</p> <p>Kind of like the federal government.</p> <p>Sometimes, bigger isn&#8217;t better.  It&#8217;s badder.</p> <p>Ironically, Americans instinctively distrust concentrated, centralized power. Doubt it? Go out on a busy sidewalk in any city and ask 10 people how they feel about business monopolies. Nine out of ten, if not all ten of them, will invariably condemn giant conglomerates. They’ll rail about unfair market control by monopolists. They’ll express fear that monopolistic businesses will take advantage of consumers and charge exorbitant prices. And will approve of government action to prevent or break up monopolistic activity. Most Americans even harbor some level of distrust toward generally respected companies like Microsoft – a business driving amazing technological advances in computing with astounding productivity benefits. When it comes to monopoly, Americans may enjoy the board game, but they almost all condemn the real thing.</p> <p>Until it comes to government.</p> <p>Americans love monopoly government.</p> <p>Many of the same people who bemoan corporate monopoly don&#8217;t bat an eye at monopolistic power vested in the U.S. federal government. In fact, they encourage governopoly, calling for more and more agencies, performing more and more functions once left to state and local governments, or private organizations.</p> <p>This makes no sense.</p> <p>Government power presents a far greater threat to liberty and our way of life than an economic monopolist. After all, governments have guns. Walmart may screw you out of a few dollars on some made in China trinket, but the feds can throw you in prison if you defy their authority, and they hold the power to confiscate your money with the stroke of a pen.</p> <p>The founders warned against this concentration of power in the federal government. They called it &#8220;consolidation.&#8221; Richard Henry Lee sounded the alarm on consolidation in <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Memoir_of_the_Life_of_Richard_Henry_Lee/bkkWIBqWCCYC?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22The+most+essential+danger+from+the+present+System+arises,+%7Bin+my%7D+opinion,+from+its+tendency+to+a+Consolidated+government,+instead+of+a+Union+of+Confederated+States-The+history+of+the+world+and+reason+concurs+in+proving+that+so+extensive+a+Territory+%7Bas+the%7D+U.+States+comprehend+never+was,+or+can+be+governed+in+freed%7Bom%7D+under+the+former+idea%22&amp;pg=RA1-PA98&amp;printsec=frontcover" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a letter to Patrick Henry</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The most essential danger from the present System arises, {in my} opinion, from its tendency to a Consolidated government, instead of a Union of Confederated States-The history of the world and reason concurs in proving that so extensive a Territory {as the} U. States comprehend never was, or can be governed in freed{om} under the former idea&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-32-02-0061" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Thomas Jefferson made a similar point</a>, writing that the United State was too large to be ruled by a single monopoly government.</p> <blockquote><p>“Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste.”</p></blockquote> <p>Sadly, Americans failed to heed the warning.</p> <p>Washington D.C. has choked the life out of state governments. It’s choked the life out of private organizations. And it’s choked the life out of the average citizen. The federal government today is a giant, ubiquitous kudzu plant, overgrowing everything, strangling the life out of all it covers. A green, mindless unkillable ghost, with tendrils of power spreading from sea to shining sea, wrapping itself around virtually everything. Today, scarcely any part of life in the U.S. remains untouched by the federal government.</p> <p>The behemoth in D.C. will continue to grow until people begin to reject the notion of monopoly government. The first step &#8211; quit calling the 202 area code. Pretend D.C. doesn&#8217;t exist. Concentrate your effort on state and local action. And work to <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification-overview/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nullify the feds into oblivion</a>.</p> <p><em>This article was based on an excerpt from <a href="https://shop.tenthamendmentcenter.com/product/our-last-hope-rediscovering-the-lost-path-to-liberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty</a>.</em></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/22/the-most-essential-danger/">The Most Essential Danger</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Federal Power big-government Consolidation decentralization Monopoly Washington D.C. Mike Maharrey Nullify! They Don’t Want us Doing This. We’re Doing it Anyway https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/nullify-they-dont-want-us-doing-this-were-doing-it-anyway/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:cb3308dd-1dbe-c7f0-4941-db4a2a0d37d0 Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:48:39 +0000 <p>Following the wisdom and advice of the Founders and Old Revolutionaries, we recognize that the federal government is one of limited, delegated powers. When it exceeds those limits, it commits an act of usurpation - which must be rendered “void.” Establishment left and right want us to rely on the federal government to somehow fix itself - they all despise nullification. But that won’t stop supporters of the Constitution and liberty from using it anyway.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/nullify-they-dont-want-us-doing-this-were-doing-it-anyway/">Nullify! They Don’t Want us Doing This. We’re Doing it Anyway</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p>Following the wisdom and advice of the Founders and Old Revolutionaries, we recognize that the federal government is one of limited, delegated powers. When it exceeds those limits, it commits an act of usurpation &#8211; which must be rendered “void.” Establishment left and right want us to rely on the federal government to somehow fix itself &#8211; they all despise nullification. But that won’t stop supporters of the Constitution and liberty from using it anyway.</p> <p>Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: January 22, 2021<span id="more-36184"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/PR5bso6F2yU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://brbl-zoom.library.yale.edu/viewer/1125742" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Samuel Adams to Elbridge Gerry (22 Aug 1789)</a></p> <p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Madison Federalist No 45 (26 Jan 1788)</a></p> <p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson (15 Feb 1791)</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Paine &#8211; Rights of Man (16 Mar 1791)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/tucker-view-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-with-selected-writings" rel="noopener" target="_blank">St. George Tucker (1803)</a></p> <p><a href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a3_2_1s13.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Oliver Ellsworth (7 Jan 1788) </a></p> <p><a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-against-writs-of-assistance/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Otis &#8211; Speech Against the Writs of Assistance (24 Feb 1761)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.consource.org/document/roger-sherman-to-___-1787-12-8/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Roger Sherman (8 Dec 1787)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.consource.org/document/samuel-adams-to-richard-henry-lee-1789-8-24/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Samuel Adams to Richard Henry Lee (24 Aug 1789)</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-17-02-0128" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Madison Virginia Resolutions (24 Dec 1798)</a></p> <p><a href="https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/jefferson%E2%80%99s-fair-copy" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy (1798)</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/1114/nullification-in-one-lesson/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Nullification in One Lesson</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-012221:e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/founding-four-first-inaugurals-from-washington-6008b48b9aaedf6048492d3e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=160591899168258" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-012221:e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/t607af9tJJeb/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/14a61171-4df7-459f-be08-5a8ad5e9dade" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/b86e57b3-596e-4066-aa40-2befc8d19a64" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/883652377" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1nAKELDOeEYxL" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+mAH-d8fGg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> LBRY: <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter">https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/nullify-they-dont-want-us-doing-this-were-doing-it-anyway/">Nullify! They Don’t Want us Doing This. We’re Doing it Anyway</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Audio/Video Founding Fathers Path to Liberty Founders History Nullification Quotes Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 15:59 Following the wisdom and advice of the Founders and Old Revolutionaries, we recognize that the federal government is one of limited, delegated powers. When it exceeds those limits, it commits an act of usurpation - which must be rendered “void. Following the wisdom and advice of the Founders and Old Revolutionaries, we recognize that the federal government is one of limited, delegated powers. When it exceeds those limits, it commits an act of usurpation - which must be rendered “void.” Establishment left and right want us to rely on the federal government to somehow fix itself - they all despise nullification. But that won’t stop supporters of the Constitution and liberty from using it anyway. Feds Recruit Private Companies as Soldiers in Surveillance State https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/feds-recruit-private-companies-as-soldiers-in-surveillance-state/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:e0d9f641-68af-a53a-594f-e70cc14f2582 Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:52:18 +0000 <p>If corporations willingly become an arm of the federal government and begin 'implementing additional screening' of every visitor and passenger, could a No-Visitor list be far behind?</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/feds-recruit-private-companies-as-soldiers-in-surveillance-state/">Feds Recruit Private Companies as Soldiers in Surveillance State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p>The War on Terror has officially crossed the line by using the Capitol riot to destroy what little is left of our civil liberties.</p> <p><i>Bloomberg News</i> <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-15/lawmakers-ask-travel-companies-to-fight-domestic-terrorism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that the House Oversight Committee has asked travel companies to help law enforcement ID suspected Capitol rioters.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The committee sent letters to hotel chains, bus lines, car rental companies and online travel agents, asking them to retain all records regarding reservations and services for the entire month of January for potential use, if necessary, in future law enforcement or Congressional investigations.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>When the Feds openly ask travel companies to help them ID suspected rioters <strong><em>everyone&#8217;s</em></strong> privacy is at risk.</p> <p>As <i>Forbes</i> <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/01/15/retain-all-records-through-january-congress-instructs-travel-companies/?sh=79b3b5ec6d2b" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a>, the Feds sent letters to more than two dozen travel companies, including nine bus companies.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;Greyhound, Megabus, BoltBus, Lux Bus America, Vamoose, Jefferson Lines, Peter Pan, Flixbus and RedCoach; eight car rental companies Enterprise, Hertz, Avis, National, Alamo, Budget. Dollar and Thrifty; and 10 hotel and lodging groups Expedia, Intercontinental Hotels Group, Accor Group, Hyatt, Hilton, Choice Hotels, Marriott, Best Western International, Wyndham Hotels &amp; Resorts and Extended Stay America.&#8221; </i></p></blockquote> <p>Why is everyone&#8217;s privacy at stake?</p> <p>As <i>Bloomberg News</i> warned, the Feds are essentially encouraging private corporations to become secret intelligence operatives of the government.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;The committee is also asking the companies to implement additional screening to make sure their services are not being used to facilitate violence or domestic terrorism and give the committee a list of what policies and procedures are currently being used.&#8221;</i></p></blockquote> <p>&#8220;Implementing additional screening&#8221; is spook-talk for conducting due diligence (extensive) searches of every visitor.</p> <p>What&#8217;s to stop travel companies from using <a href="https://clearview.ai/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><i>Clearview AI</i></a> to facially ID every visitor and passenger in the past and into the future?</p> <p>As the article pointed out, the Committee&#8217;s letters made no mention of compelling they provide additional information by subpoena.</p> <p>Why?</p> <p>Because asking private corporations to &#8216;implement additional screening&#8217; of every visitor and passenger gives the Federal government immunity from any future litigation.</p> <p>It&#8217;s not like the Feds need to coax corporations into handing over visitors&#8217; personal information without a warrant.</p> <p>A <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-suppressescocaine-blasts-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2016 case</a> involving law enforcement searching Greyhound bus passengers&#8217; belongings without a warrant is an open secret. And two years ago I <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2018/03/hotel-and-motel-staff-spy-on-how-much.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">documented</a> how hotels and motels work with DHS and law enforcement to identify so-called &#8216;suspicious people&#8217;.</p> <p>DHS&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/blue-campaign/toolkits/hospitality-toolkit-eng.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&#8220;Blue Campaign&#8221;</a> asks hotel and motel workers to report visitors who have committed one of nineteen suspicious things.</p> <ol> <li>Do Not Disturb sign used constantly.</li> <li>Requests room or housekeeping services (additional towels, new linens, etc.), but denies hotel/motel staff entry into room.</li> <li>Refusal of cleaning services for multiple days.</li> <li>Excessive amounts of cash in a room.</li> <li>Smell of bodily fluids and musk.</li> <li>Presence of multiple computers, cell phones, pagers, credit card swipes, or other technology.</li> <li>The same person reserving multiple rooms.</li> <li>Individuals leaving room infrequently, not at all, or at odd hours.</li> <li>Children’s items or clothing are present but no child registered with the room.</li> <li>Individuals loitering in hallways or appearing to monitor the area.</li> <li>Excessive amounts of alcohol or illegal drugs in rooms.</li> <li>Evidence of pornography.</li> <li>Minors left alone in room for long periods of time.</li> <li>Excessive number of people staying in a room.</li> <li>Extended stay with few or no personal possessions.</li> <li>Provocative clothing and shoes.</li> <li>Constant flow of men into a room at all hours.</li> <li>Excessive amounts of sex paraphernalia in rooms (condoms, lubricant, lotion, etc.).</li> <li>Rooms stocked with merchandise, luggage, mail packages, and purses/wallets with different names.</li> </ol> <p>When federal law enforcement conducts searches on hotel, car rental and bus company patrons it casts a wide net that encompasses everyone; the innocent as well as the guilty.</p> <p>Police will ask corporations to provide travel record searches of everyone in the hopes of IDing suspected criminals. Police will often use <a href="http://law.ku.edu/sites/law.ku.edu/files/docs/return_to_green/2015/james-materials.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pen registers</a>, driver&#8217;s licenses, credit card receipts, video surveillance, Stingray&#8217;s and Bluetooth readers to ID everyone in a given area.</p> <p>History has shown that the FBI, DHS and police have a vast network to help ID protesters of the Occupy Wall Street movement or Black Lives Matter movement.</p> <p>A<i> Partnership for Civil Justice Fund</i> <a href="http://www.justiceonline.org/fbi_files_ows" target="_blank" rel="noopener">document</a> revealed a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity known as the Domestic Security Alliance Council that can be used to ID everyone.</p> <p>If corporations willingly become an arm of the federal government and begin &#8216;implementing additional screening&#8217; of every visitor and passenger, could a No-Visitor list be far behind?</p> <p>In other words could travel companies blacklist Americans suspected of anti-government activities like protesting, tweeting, or wearing Black Lives Matter shirts?</p> <p>As reporter Glenn Greenwald <a href="https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-new-domestic-war-on-terror-is" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warns</a> the new domestic War on Terror is coming.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Why would such new terrorism laws be needed in a country that already imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world as the result of a very aggressive set of criminal laws? What acts should be criminalized by new “domestic terrorism” laws that are not already deemed criminal? They never say, almost certainly because — just as was true of the first set of new War on Terror laws — their real aim is to criminalize that which should not be criminalized: speech, association, protests, opposition to the new ruling coalition.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>The real question is, will the federal government and travel companies use the Capitol riots as an excuse to create secret No-Visitor or Persona Non Grata lists of Americans?</p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2021/01/feds-ask-travel-companies-hotels-car.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">originally published at MassPrivateI</a>.</em></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/feds-recruit-private-companies-as-soldiers-in-surveillance-state/">Feds Recruit Private Companies as Soldiers in Surveillance State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Federal Funding Surveillance jprivate North Dakota Bill Would Create Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/north-dakota-bill-would-create-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:7401b896-d7b7-2cdf-6197-23562cc42a36 Fri, 22 Jan 2021 14:52:25 +0000 <p>The legislation would revise N.D. Cent. Code § 54-03-32 and require the state attorney general to review any presidential executive order not affirmed by a Congressional vote on the recommendation of the Legislative Management. Under the law, the state, its political subdivisions, and any publicly funded organization would be prohibited from implementing any executive order that restricts a person's rights or that the attorney general determines to be unconstitutional during review.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/north-dakota-bill-would-create-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/">North Dakota Bill Would Create Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>BISMARCK</strong>, N.D. (Jan. 22, 2021) &#8211; A bill introduced in the North Dakota House would create a mechanism to review presidential executive orders and end state cooperation with enforcement of certain orders determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. This process would set the stage to nullify some executive orders in effect in North Dakota.<span id="more-36144"></span></p> <p>A coalition of nine Republicans introduced House Bill 1164 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/ND/bill/1164/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1164</a>) on Jan. 8. The legislation would revise <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/north-dakota-century-code/title-54-state-government/chapter-54-03-legislative-assembly/section-54-03-32-review-of-presidential-executive-orders" target="_blank" rel="noopener">N.D. Cent. Code § 54-03-32</a> and require the state attorney general to review any <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/12/whats-the-deal-with-executive-orders/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">presidential executive order</a> not affirmed by a Congressional vote on the recommendation of the <a href="https://www.legis.nd.gov/legislative-management" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Legislative Management</a>. Under the law, the state, its political subdivisions, and any publicly funded organization would be prohibited from implementing any executive order that restricts a person&#8217;s rights or that the attorney general determines to be unconstitutional during review.</p> <p>The law would cover executive orders that relate to the following:</p> <blockquote><p>a. Pandemics or other health emergencies;<br /> b. The regulation of natural resources, including coal and oil;<br /> c. The regulation of the agriculture industry;<br /> d. The use of land;<br /> e. The regulation of the financial sector as it relates to environmental, social, or governance standards; or<br /> f. The regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.</p></blockquote> <p>Passage of HB1164 would provide a process to push back against overreaching executive authority. Immediately upon a determination of unconstitutionality by the AG, the state would be required to <strong>withdraw all resources and cease any cooperation with enforcement or implementation of the action</strong>. Because the feds lack the resources to enforce all of their laws and run all of their programs, this would likely be enough to effectively end the federal action in North Dakota in most situations, nullifying it in effect.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>Based on James Madison’s <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/07/the-blueprint-james-madisons-advice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed this type of approach would be extremely effective. In a televised discussion on federal gun laws, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing or implementing certain federal acts rests on a well-established legal principle known as <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the anti-commandeering doctrine</a>. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program &#8211; whether constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB1164 was referred to the Joint Judiciary Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/north-dakota-bill-would-create-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/">North Dakota Bill Would Create Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Federal Review State Bills anti-commandeerig Constitution Executive Orders HB1164 North Dakota Mike Maharrey Missouri Bill Would Limit “No-Knock” Warrants https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/missouri-bill-would-limit-no-knock-warrants/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:510238a5-6ec2-3223-9772-fd73d193e232 Fri, 22 Jan 2021 12:21:21 +0000 <p>The legislation would prohibit no-knock warrants unless police have reasonable suspicion that "the alleged perpetrator of a violent felony offense will escape or cause bodily harm to others." This would eliminate the vast majority of no-knock warrants in Missouri.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/missouri-bill-would-limit-no-knock-warrants/">Missouri Bill Would Limit “No-Knock” Warrants</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (Jan. 22, 2021) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Missouri Senate would limit “no-knock” warrants and take a step toward nullifying several Supreme Court opinions in practice and effect.<span id="more-36148"></span></p> <p>Sen. Steven Roberts (D-St. Louis) introduced Senate Bill 311 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/SB311/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB311</a>) on Jan. 6. The legislation would prohibit no-knock warrants unless police have reasonable suspicion that &#8220;the alleged perpetrator of a violent felony offense will escape or cause bodily harm to others.&#8221; This would eliminate the vast majority of no-knock warrants in Missouri.</p> <p><strong>Nullifying the Supreme Court</strong></p> <p>Passage of SB311 would take a big step toward effectively nullifying and making irrelevant several Supreme Court opinions that give police across the U.S. legal cover for conducting no-knock raids.</p> <p>In the 1995 case <em><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15506865603077276139&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wilson v. Arkansas</a></em>, the Supreme Court established that police must peacefully knock, announce their presence, and allow time for the occupants to open the door before entering a home to serve a warrant. But the Court allowed for “exigent circumstance” exceptions if police fear violence, if the suspect is a flight risk, or if officers fear the suspect will destroy evidence.</p> <p>As journalist <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/03/no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-was-illegal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Radley Balko notes</a>, police utilized this exception to the fullest extent, “simply declaring in search warrant affidavits that <i>all</i> drug dealers are a threat to dispose of evidence, flee or assault the officers at the door.”</p> <p>The SCOTUS eliminated this blanket exception in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10920539616941250099&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i>Richards v. Wisconsin</i></a>  (1997) requiring police to show why a specific individual is a threat to dispose of evidence, commit an act of violence or flee from police. But even with the opinion, the bar for obtaining a no-knock warrant remains low.</p> <blockquote><p>“In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a <strong>reasonable suspicion</strong> that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” [Emphasis added]</p></blockquote> <p>Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low legal bar to meet. Through this exception, police can justify no-knock entry on any warrant application. In effect, the parameters in the SCOTUS ruling make no-knock the norm instead of the exception.</p> <p>A third Supreme Court ruling effectively eliminated the consequences for violating the “knock and announce” requirement even without a no-knock warrant. In <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1360.pdf">Hudson v. Michigan</a></em> (2006), the High Court held that evidence seized in violation of knock and announce was not subject to the exclusionary rule. In other words, police could still use the evidence in court even though they technically gathered it illegally.</p> <p>Significantly, were it not for the dubious “<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>” made up by the Supreme Crout based on the 14th Amendment that purportedly empowers the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, these cases would have never gone to federal court and we wouldn’t have these blanket rules.</p> <p>Without specific restrictions from the state, police officers generally operate within the parameters set by the High Court. By passing restrictions on no-knock warrants, states set standards that go beyond the Supreme Court limits and in effect, nullify the SCOTUS opinion.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>At the time of this report, SB311 had not been referred to a committee. Once it receives a committee assignment, it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/missouri-bill-would-limit-no-knock-warrants/">Missouri Bill Would Limit “No-Knock” Warrants</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Police State Bills Courts Missouri no-knock warrant Police-State SB311 Mike Maharrey Virginia House Passes Bill That Sets Foundation to Ban Facial Recognition Surveillance https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/virginia-house-passes-bill-that-sets-foundation-to-ban-facial-recognition-surveillance/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:32db6150-085a-582c-a89e-e7ce2be80447 Fri, 22 Jan 2021 02:09:00 +0000 <p>On Thursday, the Virginia House unanimously passed a bill that would set the stage to limit the acquisition and use of facial recognition surveillance technology. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in Virginia; it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/virginia-house-passes-bill-that-sets-foundation-to-ban-facial-recognition-surveillance/">Virginia House Passes Bill That Sets Foundation to Ban Facial Recognition Surveillance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>RICHMOND</strong>, Va. (Jan. 21, 2021) &#8211; On Thursday, the Virginia House unanimously passed a bill that would set the stage to limit the acquisition and use of facial recognition surveillance technology. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in Virginia; it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-36177"></span></p> <p>Delegate Lashrecse D. Aird (D-Petersburg) introduced House Bill 2031 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/HB2031/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2031</a>) on Jan. 12. The legislation would prohibit a local law enforcement agency or campus police department from purchasing or deploying facial recognition technology unless the local governing body where the law enforcement body is located adopts an ordinance authorizing the use of facial recognition technology.</p> <p>Any law enforcement agency using facial recognition prior to the effective date of the bill would be prohibited from using facial recognition technology after the law goes into effect unless the local government adopts an ordinance authorizing its use.</p> <p>Today, the House unanimously approved HB2031 with a 100-0 vote.</p> <p>While the passage of HB2031 would not end the use of facial recognition technology in Virginia, it would take an important first step in limiting it. Police departments can acquire surveillance technology in complete secrecy using undesignated department funds or federal grant money. Sometimes, elected officials aren&#8217;t even aware of its use. The proposed law would ensure facial recognition surveillance technology is acquired and operated with transparency and oversight in the state, and also give residents a say in the process. The requirement of local government approval would also provide an avenue to limit the proliferation of this invasive surveillance technology.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>A <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recent report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/31/local-state-and-federal-law-enforcement-partnering-to-create-massive-facial-recognition-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a massive, nationwide facial recognition system</a> for years.</p> <p>The FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.</p> <p>In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at <a href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">perpetuallineup.org</a>. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.</p> <blockquote><p>“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/study-lack-of-face-recognition-oversight-threatens-privacy-of-millions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clare Garvie said</a>. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”</p></blockquote> <p>There are <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">many technical and legal problems</a> with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8wa8/amazons-facial-recognition-misidentified-1-in-5-california-lawmakers-as-criminals" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature</a> as people in a database of arrest photos.</p> <p>With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.</p> <p>In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras</a> equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of state laws and local ordinances banning or limiting facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB2031 will now move to the Senate for further consideration.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/virginia-house-passes-bill-that-sets-foundation-to-ban-facial-recognition-surveillance/">Virginia House Passes Bill That Sets Foundation to Ban Facial Recognition Surveillance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Facial Recognition State Bills facial recognition HB2031 local Privacy surveillance Virginia Mike Maharrey New Hampshire Bill Would Opt State Out of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-hampshire-bill-would-opt-state-out-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:6617c6fa-f343-f7bc-703f-090fa919bb5a Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:31:09 +0000 <p>A bill filed in the New Hampshire House would close a loophole allowing state and local police to circumvent more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the feds</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-hampshire-bill-would-opt-state-out-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/">New Hampshire Bill Would Opt State Out of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>CONCORD</strong>, N.H. (Jan 21, 2021) – A bill filed in the New Hampshire House would close a loophole allowing state and local police to circumvent more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the feds.<span id="more-36108"></span></p> <p>A coalition of seven Republicans filed House Bill 331 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB331/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB331</a>) on Jan 6. The legislation would prohibit any state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency or prosecuting authority from entering into an agreement to transfer seized property to a federal agency directly, indirectly, by adoption, or through an intergovernmental joint task force for the purposes of forfeiture litigation unless the seized property includes United States currency in excess of $100,000.</p> <p>The proposed law would also require any New Hampshire law enforcement agency participating in a joint task force with federal agencies to transfer responsibility for the seized property to a state prosecutor for forfeiture under state law unless the seized property includes over $100,000 in currency.</p> <p>Passage of HB331 would prohibit the transfer of the vast majority of asset forfeiture cases. Reporting in some areas has shown that 85 percent of seizures received by law enforcement agencies through the federal equitable sharing program did not meet a $50,000 threshold.</p> <p><strong>NECESSARY</strong></p> <p>While some people believe the Supreme Court “ended asset forfeiture,” the opinion in <i>Timbs v. Indiana</i> ended nothing. Without further action, civil asset forfeiture remains. Additionally, as law professor <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/20/supreme-court-rules-that-excessive-fines">Ilya Somin noted</a>, the Court left an important issue unresolved. What exactly counts as “excessive” in the civil forfeiture context?</p> <blockquote><p>“That is likely to be a hotly contested issue in the lower federal courts over the next few years. The ultimate effect of today’s decision depends in large part on how that question is resolved. If courts rule that only a few unusually extreme cases qualify as excessive, the impact of Timbs might be relatively marginal.”</p></blockquote> <p>Going forward, opponents of civil asset forfeiture could wait and see how lower federal courts will address this “over the next few years,” or they can do what a number of states have already taken steps to do, end the practice on a state level, and opt-out of the federal equitable sharing program as well.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>Passage of HB331 is particularly important in light of a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/30/states-can-thwart-new-doj-asset-forfeiture-policy/">policy directive issued in July 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> for the Department of Justice (DOJ).</p> <p>A federal program known as “<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/federal-asset-forfeiture-program-helps-local-police-steal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Equitable Sharing</a>” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.</p> <p>Passage of HB331 would do just that in New Hampshire. This is extremely important given that the state has much more strict asset forfeiture requirements than the federal government. New Hampshire law prohibits seizing property if the owner was found not guilty of the underlying criminal offense.</p> <p>Until recently, California faced a similar situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state closed the loophole</a> in 2016.</p> <p>As the Tenth Amendment Center <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/09/feds-meddling-in-attempt-to-undermine-state-asset-forfeiture-reform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">previously reported</a> the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.</p> <p>Why?</p> <p>We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB331 was referred to the <a href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House Judiciary Committee</a>. It will need a &#8220;do-pass&#8221; recommendation for the best chance of passing in the full House.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-hampshire-bill-would-opt-state-out-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/">New Hampshire Bill Would Opt State Out of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Asset Forfeiture State Bills HB331 New Hampshire Police-State Policing for Profit Mike Maharrey New York Bills Would Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-york-bills-would-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:c9b4c201-90d9-b98e-2790-21c21a1ceb83 Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:17:42 +0000 <p>Assembly bill 1248 (A1248) and Senate bill 854 (S854), both introduced earlier this month with multiple sponsors, would legalize marijuana use by adults over the age of 21, and allow for the cultivation and sale of cannabis. The proposed law would also enact a marijuana regulation and taxation scheme and create several funds for the use of tax dollars, including the New York state drug treatment and public education fund.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-york-bills-would-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">New York Bills Would Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>ALBANY</strong>, N.Y. (Jan. 21, 2021) Bills intorduced in the New York House and Senate would legalize marijuana in the state despite federal prohibition on the same.<span id="more-36112"></span></p> <p>Assembly bill 1248 <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/A1248" target="_blank" rel="noopener">(A1248)</a> and Senate bill 854 <a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/text/S00854/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">(S854)</a>, both introduced earlier this month with multiple sponsors, would legalize marijuana use by adults over the age of 21, and allow for the cultivation and sale of cannabis. The proposed law would also enact a marijuana regulation and taxation scheme and create several funds for the use of tax dollars, including the New York state drug treatment and public education fund.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>New York legalized medical marijuana in 2016. The legalization of recreational cannabis would remove another layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state even though federal prohibition would remain in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>New York could join a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit i</a>n 2019. South Dakota, New Jersey, Montana and Arizona all <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/04/thirty-six-and-counting-more-states-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legalized recreational marijuana through ballot measures</a> in the 2020 election and Mississippi legalized medicinal cannabis.</p> <p>With 36 states now allowing cannabis for medical use, and 15 legalizing for recreational adult-use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>The bills are currently in committee &#8211; A1248 in the <a href="https://nyassembly.gov/comm/?sec=mem&amp;id=7" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Codes Committee</a>, and S00854 in the <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/senators-committees" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senate Finance Committee</a>. They must pass with a majority to move forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-york-bills-would-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">New York Bills Would Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Drug War State Bills A1248 cannabis Marijuana New York Amanda Bowers Oregon Bill Would Limit State Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/oregon-bill-would-limit-state-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:770f1b21-3122-5d93-3a0e-9e76ce22b704 Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:17:43 +0000 <p>A bill filed in the Oregon House would ban state and local law enforcement agencies from acquiring certain military equipment from federal programs and place other limits on police militarization.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/oregon-bill-would-limit-state-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/">Oregon Bill Would Limit State Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>SALEM</strong>, Ore. (Jan. 21, 2021) &#8211; A bill filed in the Oregon House would ban state and local law enforcement agencies from acquiring certain military equipment from federal programs and place other limits on police militarization.<span id="more-36120"></span></p> <p>Rep. Karin Power (D-Milwaukie) and Rep. Julianne Fahey (D-West Eugene) filed House Bill 2481 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/OR/bill/HB2481/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2481</a>) on Jan. 11. The legislation would ban state and local law enforcement agencies from receiving the following equipment from military surplus programs operated by the federal government.</p> <ul> <li>Unmanned aircraft systems that are armored or weaponized</li> <li>Aircraft that are combat-configured or combat-coded</li> <li>Grenades or similar explosives, or grenade launchers</li> <li>Firearms silencers</li> <li>Mine-resistant vehicles, unmanned ground vehicles or militarized combat, assault or armored vehicles.</li> </ul> <p>The bill would also prohibit law enforcement agencies from using federal funds to purchase allowable equipment from military surplus programs. They would be required to use state or local funds.</p> <p>HB2481 includes provisions to increase transparency. Police departments requesting allowable equipment from federal military surplus programs would be required to publish notice of the request on a publicly accessible website within 14 days after the request.</p> <p>The legislation applies both to the well-known 1033 program, along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government.</p> <p>While passage of HB2481 wouldn’t end the militarization, it would keep some dangerous weapons out of the hands of police officers set the stage for further limits in the future.</p> <p>Police departments often obtain military and surveillance equipment from the federal government in complete secrecy. Requiring public disclosure of all requests for military gear and banning federal funding would bring the process into the open and provide an opportunity for concerned residents to stop the acquisition through their local representatives.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL SURPLUS AND GRANT MONEY</strong></p> <p>Through the federal 1033 Program, local police departments procure military-grade weapons. Police can also get military equipment through the Department of Homeland Security via the (DHS) “Homeland Security Grant Program.” The DHS <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/04/12/dhs-announces-funding-opportunity-fiscal-year-2019-preparedness-grants#:~:text=Homeland%20Security%20Grant%20Program%20(HSGP,of%20terrorism%20and%20other%20threats." data-et-has-event-already="true">doles out over $1 billion in counterterrorism funds</a> to state and local police each year. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon-funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”</p> <p>In August 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/28/executive-order-takes-window-dressing-off-police-militarization-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gave a push to local police militarization</a>. Trump’s action rescinded an <a href="https://www.bja.gov/publications/LEEWG_Report_Final.pdf">Obama-era policy </a>meant to provide greater transparency and oversight around the Department of Defense 1033 program and other federal resources that provide military weapons to local police.</p> <p>Passage of HB2481 would limit Oregon&#8217;s participation in federal police militarization programs and create a framework of transparency. It would also create a foundation for the public to stop their local police from obtaining this type of gear.</p> <p><strong>COMMAND AND CONTROL</strong></p> <p>Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the founders. They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’</p> <p>In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”</p> <p>By making it more difficult for local police to get this military-grade gear and surveillance technology, and ensuring they can’t do it in secret, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships. The passage of HB2481 would take a first step toward limiting police militarization in Oregon.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB2481 will be officially introduced when the legislature convenes on Jan. 19. It will then be referred to a committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/oregon-bill-would-limit-state-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/">Oregon Bill Would Limit State Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Police State Bills 1033 Program HB2481 Oregon Police Militarization Police-State Mike Maharrey Minnesota Bill Would Reform Asset Forfeiture Process, Opt State Out of Federal Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/minnesota-bill-would-reform-asset-forfeiture-process-opt-state-out-of-federal-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:eb2e78c5-d7a8-98c3-06c4-3098f37964af Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:52:13 +0000 <p>A bill introduced in the Minnesota House would make some reforms to the state’s asset forfeiture process and opt the state out of a federal program that allows police to bypass strict state asset forfeiture laws.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/minnesota-bill-would-reform-asset-forfeiture-process-opt-state-out-of-federal-program/">Minnesota Bill Would Reform Asset Forfeiture Process, Opt State Out of Federal Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>MINNEAPOLIS</strong>, Minn. (Jan. 21, 2021) – A bill introduced in the Minnesota House would make some reforms to the state’s asset forfeiture process and opt the state out of a federal program that allows police to bypass strict state asset forfeiture laws.<span id="more-36141"></span></p> <p>Rep. Kelly Moller (D-Shoreview) and Rep. Jamie Becker-Finn (D-Roseville) introduced House Bill 75 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MN/bill/HF75/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HF75</a>) on Jan. 14. The legislation would establish a process to protect innocent owners from having property seized if somebody else used it in a crime. It would also place some limits on vehicles and other property subject to forfeiture.</p> <p>In addition to the reforms, HF75 would establish robust reporting requirements for each forfeiture conducted in the state. By increasing transparency, the legislation would allow Minnesotans to see the reality of asset forfeiture. As the saying goes, sunlight is the best antiseptic. Transparency often creates the momentum needed to drive future change.</p> <p>HF18 would also opt Minnesota out of a federal asset forfeiture program. This is particularly important in light of a  <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/30/states-can-thwart-new-doj-asset-forfeiture-policy/">policy directive issued in July 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> for the Department of Justice (DOJ) that remains in effect today.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>“<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH6vYLXTfGI">Equitable Sharing</a>” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The new DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies often bypass more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.</p> <p>Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state closed the loophole</a> in 2016.</p> <p>HF75 would opt Minnesota out of the federal equitable sharing program with the following language.</p> <blockquote><p>“The appropriate agency shall not directly or indirectly transfer property subject to forfeiture under sections 18 609.531 to 609.5318 to a federal agency if the transfer would circumvent state law.”</p></blockquote> <p>As the Tenth Amendment Center <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/09/feds-meddling-in-attempt-to-undermine-state-asset-forfeiture-reform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">previously reported</a> the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.</p> <p>Why?</p> <p>We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.</p> <p><strong>NECESSARY</strong></p> <p>While some people believe the Supreme Court “ended asset forfeiture, its opinion in <i>Timbs v. Indiana</i> <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/asset-forfeiture-was-not-ended-by-the-supreme-court-good-morning-liberty-02-25-19/">ended nothing</a>. Without further action, civil asset forfeiture remains. Additionally, as law professor <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/20/supreme-court-rules-that-excessive-fines">Ilya Somin noted</a>, the Court left an important issue unresolved. What exactly counts as “excessive” in the civil forfeiture context?</p> <blockquote><p>“That is likely to be a hotly contested issue in the lower federal courts over the next few years. The ultimate effect of today’s decision depends in large part on how that question is resolved. If courts rule that only a few unusually extreme cases qualify as excessive, the impact of Timbs might be relatively marginal.”</p></blockquote> <p>Going forward, opponents of civil asset forfeiture could wait and see how lower federal courts will address this “over the next few years,” or they can do what a number of states have already taken steps to do, end the practice on a state level, and opt out of the federal equitable sharing program as well.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HF75 was referred to the <a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/committee.asp?comm=91028" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Committee on Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Division</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/minnesota-bill-would-reform-asset-forfeiture-process-opt-state-out-of-federal-program/">Minnesota Bill Would Reform Asset Forfeiture Process, Opt State Out of Federal Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing HF75 Minnesota Policing for Profit Mike Maharrey Georgia Bill Would Create State Process to End Police Qualified Immunity https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/georgia-bill-would-create-state-process-to-end-police-qualified-immunity/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:e6f8c85d-bba8-75d8-98d3-3f4e411a6d87 Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:52:05 +0000 <p>The legislation would create a cause of action in state courts to sue police officers “who, under color of law, subjects or causes any other person to be subjected to the deprivation of any individual rights secured by the Constitution of this state or by the Constitution of the United States by, including, but not limited to, failing to intervene.”</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/georgia-bill-would-create-state-process-to-end-police-qualified-immunity/">Georgia Bill Would Create State Process to End Police Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>ATLANTA</strong>, Ga. (Jan. 21, 2021) – A bill introduced in the Georgia House would create a process to sue police officers in state court for using excessive force or taking other actions that violate individual rights without the possibility of “qualified immunity” as a defense.<span id="more-36143"></span></p> <p>A coalition of five Democrats introduced House Bill 69 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/GA/bill/HB69/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB69</a>) on Jan. 13. The legislation would create a cause of action in state courts to sue police officers “who, under color of law, subjects or causes any other person to be subjected to the deprivation of any individual rights secured by the Constitution of this state or by the Constitution of the United States by, including, but not limited to, failing to intervene.”</p> <p>HB69 explicitly declares that “no statutory immunities or immunities at law, including, but not limited to, qualified immunity, shall be a defense to liability.”</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;It shall not be a defense or immunity to any action brought under this Code section that the defendant was acting in good faith, without malice, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time the negligent action or violation of the law was committed, nor shall it be a defense or immunity that the individual rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of this state or of the United States were not clearly established at the time of such defendant&#8217;s actions or that the state of law was otherwise such that the defendant could not reasonably have been expected to know whether his or her conduct was lawful.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/12/georgia-bills-create-state-process-to-end-police-qualified-immunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Two other police reform bills</a> introduced by Rep. Sandra Scott (D-Rex) earlier this year have similar provisions.</p> <p><strong>The Process </strong></p> <p>Typically, people sue police for using excessive force or other types of misconduct through the federal court system under the U.S. Bill of Rights. But <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/13/how-federal-courts-gave-us-qualified-immunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">federal courts created a qualified immunity defense out of thin air</a>, making it nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers responsible for actions taken in the line of duty. In order to move ahead with a suit, the plaintiff must establish that it was “clearly established” that the officer’s action was unconstitutional. The “clearly established” test erects an almost insurmountable hurdle to those trying to prove excessive force or a violation of their rights.</p> <p>Passage of HB69 would create an alternative path in state court with no qualified immunity hurdle to clear.</p> <p>The language in this Georgia bill is similar to a law recently <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/signed-as-law-colorado-creates-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity-for-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed in Colorado</a>.</p> <p><strong>In Practice</strong></p> <p>It remains unclear how the state legal process would play out in practice.</p> <p>The first question is whether people will actually utilize the state courts instead of the federal process. Under the original constitutional system, it would have never been a federal issue to begin with. Regulation of police powers was clearly delegated to the states, not the federal government. But with the advent of the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>, people reflexively run to federal courts. But by removing the qualified immunity hurdle, it should incentivize people to take advantage of the state system.</p> <p>The second question is if police officers will be able to transfer cases to federal jurisdiction in order to take advantage of qualified immunity.</p> <p>Language in HB69 opens that door. The proposed law would allow people to sue in state court for violations of the U.S. Constitution or laws of the United States. All matters regarding the U.S. Constitution or federal law will be remanded to federal courts. To avoid this, plaintiffs would have to sue based solely on the Georgia Constitution and its bill of rights. The only way to avoid federal jurisdiction and ensure federal qualified immunity doesn’t come into play would be to limit the suit to <strong>state</strong> constitutional issues.</p> <p>Even if the suit is focused on state law and the Georgia constitution, state and local law enforcement officers working <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/16/joint-law-enforcement-task-forces-are-creating-a-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">on joint state/federal task forces</a> would almost certainly be able to move the case to federal court. They are effectively treated as federal agents.</p> <p>One attorney told the Tenth Amendment Center that it might be possible for officers to have their case removed to federal court to consider U.S. constitutional ramifications. But he said even then, he thinks federal courts would have to respect the state law prohibiting qualified immunity as a defense. The federal court would likely have to apply the state law as the state intended, even though the federal court might well be able to decide whether or not a U.S. constitutional violation had taken place.</p> <p>Other lawyers we talked to said it wasn’t clear to them that the federal courts would have to honor the state statute. It is possible that the federal court could simply decide its jurisdiction supersedes state law and hear the case under the federal process, including the application of qualified immunity. Only time will tell how the process will play out in practice. Regardless, the state process will make it more difficult for police to simply side-step civil suits by declaring sovereign immunity upfront.</p> <p><strong>Moving Forward </strong></p> <p>The Supreme Court shows no interest in rolling back its qualified immunity doctrine. In fact, the High Court recently rejected several cases that would have allowed it to revisit the issue. For instance, the SCOTUS let stand an <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715566.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eleventh Circuit decision</a> granting immunity to a police officer who shot a ten-year-old child in the back of the knee, while repeatedly attempting to shoot a pet dog that wasn’t threatening anyone.</p> <p>Congress could prohibit qualified immunity. <a href="https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-end-qualified-immunity" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A bill</a> sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.) and  Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) during the last Congress would have done just that, but it was never taken up. Congress does not have a good track recorded on reining in government power.</p> <p>The best path forward is to bypass the federal system as Colorado has already done.</p> <p>Other states should follow their lead and create state processes to hold their police officers accountable. With the evolution of qualified immunity, the federal process is an abject failure. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote in the 1986 case <em>Malley v. Briggs</em>, qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-immunity-scotus-snapshot/six-takeaways-from-reuters-investigation-of-police-violence-and-qualified-immunity-idUSKBN22K1AM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Reuters</em> called it</a> “a highly effective shield in thousands of lawsuits seeking to hold cops accountable for using excessive force.”</p> <p>Attorney and activist Dave Roland called on Missouri to adopt a similar process in <a href="https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/dave-roland-no-more-excuses-hold-law-enforcement-officials-accountable/article_9d627981-1950-5858-abd9-d14cf587def6.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an op-ed published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>A consensus has developed — crossing all party and ideological lines — for the proposition that qualified immunity is an evil that should be undone. At the federal level either the Supreme Court or Congress could undo it, but thus far neither has seen fit to act. Justice in Missouri, however, does not need to wait on Washington — the Legislature can and should adopt a Missouri statute that allows citizens to sue government officials who have violated citizens’ constitutional rights.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB69 was referred to the <a href="https://www.legis.ga.gov/committees/house/106?session=1029" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House Judiciary Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/georgia-bill-would-create-state-process-to-end-police-qualified-immunity/">Georgia Bill Would Create State Process to End Police Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Qualified Immunity State Bills Courts Georgia HB69 Incorporation Doctrine Police-State Mike Maharrey Virginia Bill Would Limit ALPR Use, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/virginia-bill-would-limit-alpr-use-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:606f03ea-881d-8c02-4d8e-6d9f18c13b14 Thu, 21 Jan 2021 02:39:16 +0000 <p>Under the proposed law, Virginia police and other regulatory agencies would be prohibited from using ALPRs to collect and maintain personal information on individuals without a warrant.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/virginia-bill-would-limit-alpr-use-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking-program/">Virginia Bill Would Limit ALPR Use, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>RICHMOND</strong>, Va. (Jan. 20, 2021) &#8211;  A bill filed in the Virginia Senate would limit law enforcement use of automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) in the state. The proposed law would also place significant roadblocks in the way of a federal program using states to help track the location of millions of everyday people through pictures of their license plates.<span id="more-36109"></span></p> <p>Sen. John Petersen (D-Fairfax) introduced Senate Bill 1198 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/SB1198/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB1198</a>) on Jan. 11. The legislation would put strict limits on law enforcement use of <a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-readers-alpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ALPRs</a>. Under the proposed law, Virginia police and other regulatory agencies would be prohibited from using ALPRs to collect and maintain personal information on individuals without a warrant.</p> <p>Warrantless use of ALPRs would only be allowed for &#8220;prompt evaluation&#8221; for the investigation of suspected criminal activity, civil or regulatory violations, or terrorism. Law enforcement agencies could only retain ALPR data gathered without a warrant for seven days and could &#8220;not be subject to any outside inquiries or internal usage except for the investigation of a crime or a report of a missing person.&#8221;</p> <p>SB1198 would also prohibit any state or local police and regulatory agencies from acquiring personal information collected from a license plate from any third-party private vendor.</p> <p>Placing limits on the sharing and retention of ALPR data is particularly important in Virginia. In October 2020, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/virginia-court-rules-license-plate-tracking-doesnt-violate-privacy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Virginia Supreme Court held that Virginia police can keep ALPR data indefinitely</a>. The court ruled that retaining license plate data, including a record of the time and place where the system photographed the vehicle, does not violate state privacy laws.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>As reported in the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spies-on-millions-of-cars-1422314779?autologin=y" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i>Wall Street Journal</i></a>, the federal government, via the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), tracks the location of millions of vehicles through data provided by ALPRs operated on a state and local level. They’ve engaged in this for nearly a decade, all without a warrant, or even public notice of the policy.</p> <p>State and local law enforcement agencies operate most of these tracking systems, paid for by federal grant money. The DEA then taps into the local database to track the whereabouts of millions of people – for the “crime” of driving – without having to operate a huge network itself.</p> <p>ALPRs can scan, capture and record thousands of license plates every minute and store them in massive databases, along with date, time and location information.</p> <p>Records <a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-reader-dataset" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation</a> (EFF) through open records requests encompassed information compiled by 200 law enforcement agencies that utilize ALPRs. The data revealed more than <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/2-5-billion-surveillance-state-goes-wild-good-morning-liberty-11-16-18/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2.5 billion license plate scans</a> in just two years (2016 and 2017).</p> <p>Perhaps more concerning, this gigantic sample of license plate scans reveals that 99.5 percent of this data was collected regardless of whether the vehicle or its owner were suspected of being involved in criminal activity. On average, agencies share this data with a minimum of <b>160 other agencies</b>. In some cases, agencies share this data with as many as <b>800 other agencies</b>.</p> <p>Private companies contribute to the proliferation of ALPR databases. In late 2019, <a href="https://rekorsystems.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rekor Systems</a> announced that they had launched the <a href="https://rekorsystems.com/news/rekor-systems-launches-public-safety-network/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rekor Public Safety Network</a> (RPSN) which gives law enforcement real-time access to license plates.</p> <blockquote><p>“Any state or local law enforcement agency participating in the RPSN will be able to access real-time data from any part of the network at no cost. The Company is initially launching the network by aggregating vehicle data from customers in over 30 states. With thousands of automatic license plate reading cameras currently in service that capture approximately 150 million plate reads per month, the network is expected to be live by the first quarter of 2020.”</p></blockquote> <p>Police generally configure ALPRs to store the photograph, the license plate number, and the date, time, and location of a vehicle’s license plate, which is bad enough. But according to <a href="https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/071613-aclu-alprreport-opt-v05.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">records obtained by the ACLU</a> via a Freedom of Information Act request, these systems also capture photographs of drivers and their passengers.</p> <p>With the FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolling out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, and the federal government building <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a giant biometric database</a> with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends, the feds can potentially access stored photographs of drivers and passengers, along with detailed data revealing their location and activities. With this kind of information, government agents can easily find individuals without warrants or oversight, for any reason whatsoever.</p> <p>Since a majority of federal license plate tracking data comes from state and local law enforcement, laws banning or even restricting ALPR use are essential. As more states pass such laws, the end result becomes more clear. No data equals no federal license plate tracking program.</p> <p>Passage of SB1198 would take another step toward putting a dent in federal plans to continue location tracking and expanding its facial recognition program. The less data that states make available to the federal government, the less ability it has to track people in Virginia and elsewhere.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB1198 was referred to the Senate Committee on General Laws and Technology where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/virginia-bill-would-limit-alpr-use-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking-program/">Virginia Bill Would Limit ALPR Use, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. License Plate Tracking State Bills ALPR automatic license plate reader Privacy SB1198 surveillance Virginia Mike Maharrey New Hampshire Bill Would Prohibit “No-Knock” Warrants https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-hampshire-bill-would-prohibit-no-knock-warrants/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:e23a31d7-2c8b-8c5b-8385-4e432dc1cf92 Thu, 21 Jan 2021 02:09:52 +0000 <p>The legislation would prohibit law enforcement officers from seeking, executing, or participating in the execution of a no-knock search warrant. The law would require police involved in executing a search warrant to be recognizable and identifiable as uniformed law enforcement officers and to provide audible notice of their authority and purpose "reasonably expected to be heard by occupants of such place to be searched prior to the execution of such search warrant."</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-hampshire-bill-would-prohibit-no-knock-warrants/">New Hampshire Bill Would Prohibit “No-Knock” Warrants</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>CONCORD</strong>, N.H. (Jan. 20, 2021) &#8211; A bill introduced in the New Hampshire House would prohibit “no-knock” warrants and take a step toward nullifying several Supreme Court opinions in practice and effect.<span id="more-36142"></span></p> <p>A bipartisan coalition of 12 representatives introduced House Bill 507 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB507/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB507</a>) on Jan. 6. The legislation would prohibit law enforcement officers from seeking, executing, or participating in the execution of a no-knock search warrant. The law would require police involved in executing a search warrant to be recognizable and identifiable as uniformed law enforcement officers and to provide audible notice of their authority and purpose &#8220;reasonably expected to be heard by occupants of such place to be searched prior to the execution of such search warrant.&#8221;</p> <p>Any evidence gathered in violation of the law would be inadmissible in court.</p> <p><strong>Nullifying the Supreme Court</strong></p> <p>Passage of HB507 would take a big step toward effectively nullifying and making irrelevant several Supreme Court opinions that give police across the U.S. legal cover for conducting no-knock raids.</p> <p>In the 1995 case <em><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15506865603077276139&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wilson v. Arkansas</a></em>, the Supreme Court established that police must peacefully knock, announce their presence, and allow time for the occupants to open the door before entering a home to serve a warrant. But the Court allowed for “exigent circumstance” exceptions if police fear violence, if the suspect is a flight risk, or if officers fear the suspect will destroy evidence.</p> <p>As journalist <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/03/no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-was-illegal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Radley Balko notes</a>, police utilized this exception to the fullest extent, “simply declaring in search warrant affidavits that <i>all</i> drug dealers are a threat to dispose of evidence, flee or assault the officers at the door.”</p> <p>The SCOTUS eliminated this blanket exception in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10920539616941250099&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i>Richards v. Wisconsin</i></a>  (1997) requiring police to show why a specific individual is a threat to dispose of evidence, commit an act of violence or flee from police. But even with the opinion, the bar for obtaining a no-knock warrant remains low.</p> <blockquote><p>“In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a <strong>reasonable suspicion</strong> that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” [Emphasis added]</p></blockquote> <p>Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low legal bar to meet. Through this exception, police can justify no-knock entry on any warrant application. In effect, the parameters in the SCOTUS ruling make no-knock the norm instead of the exception.</p> <p>A third Supreme Court ruling effectively eliminated the consequences for violating the “knock and announce” requirement even without a no-knock warrant. In <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1360.pdf">Hudson v. Michigan</a></em> (2006), the High Court held that evidence seized in violation of knock and announce was not subject to the exclusionary rule. In other words, police could still use the evidence in court even though they technically gathered it illegally.</p> <p>Significantly, were it not for the dubious “<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>” made up by the Supreme Crout based on the 14th Amendment that purportedly empowers the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, these cases would have never gone to federal court and we wouldn’t have these blanket rules.</p> <p>Without specific restrictions from the state, police officers generally operate within the parameters set by the High Court. By passing restrictions on no-knock warrants, states set standards that go beyond the Supreme Court limits and in effect, nullify the SCOTUS opinion.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB507 was referred to the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. A due-pass recommendation would significantly increase its chance for passage in the full House.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-hampshire-bill-would-prohibit-no-knock-warrants/">New Hampshire Bill Would Prohibit “No-Knock” Warrants</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Police State Bills Courts HB507 New Hampshire no-knock warrant Police-State Mike Maharrey New Jersey Bill Would Allow Raw Milk Sales, Reject Federal Prohibition Scheme https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-jersey-bill-would-allow-raw-milk-sales-reject-federal-prohibition-scheme/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f7e01a6c-a08d-2877-017e-d9bb1c2d1971 Thu, 21 Jan 2021 01:58:18 +0000 <p>The bill would establish a raw milk permit program, and allow raw milk to be sold by those who acquire a permit - at the farm or property where the raw milk is processed. Specific labeling (and property signage) would be required, informing consumers that "Raw Milk Is Not Pasteurized and May Contain Organisms that Cause Human Disease." Under current law, raw milk sales are prohibited in the state.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-jersey-bill-would-allow-raw-milk-sales-reject-federal-prohibition-scheme/">New Jersey Bill Would Allow Raw Milk Sales, Reject Federal Prohibition Scheme</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>TRENTON</strong>, N.J. (Jan. 20, 2021) &#8211; A bill filed in the New Jersey Assembly would allow raw milk sales in the state and take a step toward nullifying a federal prohibition scheme in effect.<span id="more-36134"></span></p> <p>Assembly bill 585 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/A585/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A585</a>) is a carryover of 2020 Assembly Bill 502, both introduced by John DiMaio (R), with several co-sponsors. The bill would establish a raw milk permit program, and allow raw milk to be sold by those who acquire a permit &#8211; at the farm or property where the raw milk is processed. Specific labeling (and property signage) would be required, informing consumers that &#8220;Raw Milk Is Not Pasteurized and May Contain Organisms that Cause Human Disease.&#8221; Under current law, raw milk sales are prohibited in the state.</p> <p><strong>Impact on Federal Prohibition</strong></p> <p>FDA officials insist that unpasteurized milk poses a health risk because of its susceptibility to contamination from cow manure, a source of E. coli.</p> <p>“It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed,” agency spokeswoman Tamara N. Ward said in November 2011.</p> <p>The FDA’s position represents more than a matter of opinion. In 1987, the feds implemented 21 CFR 1240.61(a), providing that, <em>“no person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized.”</em></p> <p>Not only do the feds ban the transportation of raw milk across state lines; they also claim the authority to ban unpasteurized milk <em>within the borders of a state</em>.</p> <p>“It is within HHS’s authority…to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well,” FDA officials wrote in response to a <a href="http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund </a>lawsuit against the agency over the interstate ban.</p> <p>The FDA clearly wants complete prohibition of raw milk and some insiders say it’s only a matter of time before the feds try to institute an absolute ban. Armed raids by FDA agents on companies like Rawsome Foods back in 2011 and Amish farms over the last few years also indicate this scenario may not be too far off.</p> <p>When states allow the sale of raw milk within their borders, it takes an important step toward nullifying this federal prohibition scheme.</p> <p>We saw this demonstrated dramatically in states that legalized industrial hemp even as the federal government maintained virtual prohibition. When states authorized production, farmers began growing industrial hemp, even in the face of a federal ban. Despite facing the possibility of federal prosecution, some growers were still willing to step into the void and begin cultivating the plant once the state removed its barriers. Eventually, the pressure on the feds led to <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/26/feds-legalize-hemp-but-not-cbd-states-can-continue-to-nullify-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the repeal of hemp prohibition</a>.</p> <p>In the same way, removing state barriers to raw milk consumption, sale and production would undoubtedly spur the creation of new markets for unpasteurized dairy products, no matter what the feds claim the power to do.</p> <p>It could ultimately nullify the interstate ban as well. If all 50 states allow raw milk, markets within the states could easily grow to the point that local sales would render the federal ban on interstate commerce pointless. And history indicates the feds do not have the resources to stop people from transporting raw milk across state lines – especially if multiple states start legalizing it. Growing markets will quickly overwhelm any federal enforcement attempts.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>A585 has been referred to the <a href="https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/committees/ShowCommittee.asp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Assembly Agriculture Committee</a>, where it must pass with a majority to continue forward in the legislative process.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-jersey-bill-would-allow-raw-milk-sales-reject-federal-prohibition-scheme/">New Jersey Bill Would Allow Raw Milk Sales, Reject Federal Prohibition Scheme</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. FDA Raw Milk State Bills A585 New Jersey unpasteurized milk Amanda Bowers Maryland Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Limit Warrantless Aerial Surveillance https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/maryland-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-limit-warrantless-aerial-surveillance/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:b18295dd-c6ac-7e60-27fd-6dc7699bc838 Thu, 21 Jan 2021 01:51:11 +0000 <p>On Tuesday, a Maryland House committee held a hearing on a bill to prohibit "persistent areal surveillance" in the state. Passage of the bill would not only protect privacy in Maryland; it would also hinder the rapidly-expanding national surveillance state</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/maryland-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-limit-warrantless-aerial-surveillance/">Maryland Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Limit Warrantless Aerial Surveillance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>ANNAPOLIS</strong>, Md. (Jan. 20, 2021) &#8211;  On Tuesday, a Maryland House committee held a hearing on a bill to prohibit &#8220;persistent areal surveillance&#8221; in the state. Passage of the bill would not only protect privacy in Maryland; it would also hinder the rapidly-expanding national surveillance state.<span id="more-36153"></span></p> <p>Del. Robin Grammer (R-Baltimore) introduced House Bill 159 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB159/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB159</a>) on Jan. 13. The legislation would prohibit any state agency from conducting &#8220;persistent aerial surveillance to gather evidence or other information in a criminal investigation without a warrant.</p> <p>On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill.</p> <p>HB159 defines &#8220;persistent aerial surveillance&#8221; as &#8220;the use of aircraft, as defined in § 5–101 of the transportation article, to record video or a concurrent series of images or pictures that when viewed in aggregate depict a person’s actions over time.&#8221;</p> <p>The legislation includes several exceptions that would allow police to engage in warrantless aerial surveillance including, on location during the execution of an arrest warrant, during a &#8220;fresh pursuit&#8221; of a suspect, search and rescue operations, locate an escaped prisoner, and a few other specific instances.</p> <p>The bill is in response to <a href="https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2020/10/30/baltimores-aerial-surveillance-program-will-end-saturday-police-say/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an aerial surveillance pilot program the Baltimore Police Department ran last year</a>.  <a href="https://www.baltimorepolice.org/transparency/newtechnologyinitiatives" target="_blank" rel="noopener">According to the BPD</a>, &#8220;one or more aircraft&#8221; operated approximately 40 hours per week and collected imagery of over 90 percent of the city. The pilot program ended last October.</p> <p>The city council approved the privately-funded six-month program. Supporters argued it would help solve crimes. The ACLU sued in federal court, arguing it violated the First and Fourth Amendments, but federal courts shot down that argument. As <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/judge-allows-warrantless-aerial-surveillance-over-baltimore" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an article published by the Cato Institute</a> explains, under SCOTUS jurisprudence, &#8220;the warrantless surveillance of property from the air does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. According to the Supreme Court, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of your private property observed from the air.&#8221;</p> <p>The BPD <a href="https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2020/09/11/baltimore-surveillance-plane-program-report-latest/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">claimed the program was a success</a>. HB159 would prohibit the police department from restarting the program.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE STATE</strong></p> <p>Limiting surveillance at the state and local level hinders the operation of the ever-growing and interconnected national surveillance state. Information gathered at the state and local level often ends up in federal databases.</p> <p>The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p>The federal government encourages and funds the purchase of surveillance technology at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on surveillance, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. The enactment of laws limiting or prohibiting surveillance strikes a major blow to the surveillance state and would be a win for privacy.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>The <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Committees/Details?cmte=jud" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House Judiciary Committee</a> must vote on HB159 and pass it by a majority before it can move forward in the legislative process.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/maryland-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-limit-warrantless-aerial-surveillance/">Maryland Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Limit Warrantless Aerial Surveillance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. State Bills Surveillance Fourth Amendment HB159 Maryland Privacy surveillance Mike Maharrey Missouri Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Take on All Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/missouri-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-take-on-all-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:e3e0510f-fbd6-8029-63db-72f1839c5fe8 Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:56:03 +0000 <p>On Tuesday, a Missouri Senate committee held a hearing on a bill that would take on federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/missouri-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-take-on-all-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/">Missouri Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Take on All Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (Jan. 20, 2021) &#8211; On Tuesday, a Missouri Senate committee held a hearing on a bill that would take on federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.<span id="more-36152"></span></p> <p>Sen. Eric Burlison (R-Battlefield) filed Senate Bill 39 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/SB39/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB39</a>) on Dec. 1. Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any entity or person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.</p> <p>On Wednesday, the Senate General Laws Committee held a hearing on the bill. Burlison testified, predicting that President-Elect Joe Biden’s administration will push for gun control. “Gun bans directly, magazine bans, attacks on private gun manufacturers, red flag laws and restrictions on individual citizens from buying firearms,” Burlison said.</p> <p>Nobody testified in opposition to the bill, but <a href="https://www.missourinet.com/2021/01/20/missouri-senators-hear-testimony-about-second-amendment-preservation-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to MissouriNet</a>, there was written testimony opposing the measure.</p> <p>A similar bill, <a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/HB85/2021" rel="noopener" target="_blank">HB85</a>, is awaiting its first hearing in the House General Laws Committee. </p> <p><strong>DETAILS OF THE LEGISLATION</strong></p> <p>The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:</p> <ul> <li>taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;</li> <li>any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.</li> </ul> <p>The proposed law defines “law-abiding citizen” as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.”</p> <p>Under the proposed law, infringement on the right to keep and bear arms would include the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Pres. Trump’s <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/10/states-should-nullify-trumps-unconstitutional-bump-stock-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bump-stock ban</a>, proposed federal “red-flag laws,” and any future gun control schemes implemented by the federal government.</p> <p>The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.</p> <blockquote><p>“Sovereign, official, or qualified immunity shall not be an affirmative defense in such actions.”</p></blockquote> <p>The bill also includes provisions that would apply to federal agents who knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringing acts identified in the law, or who give material aid and support to such enforcement efforts.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.</p> <p>In other words, Missouri law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in Missouri law enforcement again.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Missouri can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>The <a href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/GENL/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senate General Laws Committee</a> needs to vote on SB39 and pass it by a simple majority before it can move forward in the legislative process.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/missouri-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-take-on-all-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/">Missouri Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Take on All Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Gun Rights Sanctuary Missouri SB39 second amendment Mike Maharrey Founding Four: First Inaugurals from Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/founding-four-first-inaugurals-from-washington-adams-jefferson-madison/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:6ee7e12b-a535-203d-3024-8af66cd00284 Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:36:44 +0000 <p>How did the Founders treat an inaugural address? We can get a pretty good idea from their own words: Adherence to the Constitution, peace, principles - and more. An overview of the first addresses of 4 leading founders - who were also the first four presidents under the Constitution for the United States.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/founding-four-first-inaugurals-from-washington-adams-jefferson-madison/">Founding Four: First Inaugurals from Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p>How did the Founders treat an inaugural address? We can get a pretty good idea from their own words: Adherence to the Constitution, peace, principles &#8211; and more. An overview of the first addresses of 4 leading founders &#8211; who were also the first four presidents under the Constitution for the United States.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: January 20, 2021<span id="more-36156"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/6BoXUZJtHrc?start=142" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-02-02-0130-0003" rel="noopener" target="_blank">George Washington (30 Apr 1789)</a></p> <p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/adams.asp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Adams (4 Mar 1797) </a></p> <p><a href="https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/first-inaugural-address-0" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson (4 Mar 1801)</a></p> <p><a href="https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-4-1809-first-inaugural-address" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Madison (4 Mar 1809)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/03/thomas-jeffersons-first-inaugural-address-13-essential-principles/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address: 13 “Essential Principles”</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-011821:9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/when-our-rights-are-invaded-the-6005d25da61abdaee2f4dad6" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3682930095159142" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-011821:9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/W3TtAUptrLdi/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/465eda2c-dae7-48c0-992e-27b7488113e2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/9866abc1-139d-442c-84a3-e3a332ec6d24" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/878636951" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1gqxvoBbakgKB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+i7Mzk2fGg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> LBRY: <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter">https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/founding-four-first-inaugurals-from-washington-adams-jefferson-madison/">Founding Four: First Inaugurals from Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Audio/Video Founding Fathers George Washington James Madison John Adams Path to Liberty Thomas Jefferson First Inaugural Inaugural Address thomas jefferson Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 33:43 How did the Founders treat an inaugural address? We can get a pretty good idea from their own words: Adherence to the Constitution, peace, principles - and more. An overview of the first addresses of 4 leading founders - who were also the first four pr... How did the Founders treat an inaugural address? We can get a pretty good idea from their own words: Adherence to the Constitution, peace, principles - and more. An overview of the first addresses of 4 leading founders - who were also the first four presidents under the Constitution for the United States. A World Record For Lying? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/a-world-record-for-lying/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4ba4df22-69fc-18e7-23f5-12edff7d9b6e Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:22:00 +0000 <p>When Congress was sworn in earlier this month, 535 people swore to protect, defend and uphold the Constitution. Did this set the world record for the most people telling the exact same lie at the exact same time?</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/a-world-record-for-lying/">A World Record For Lying?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p>When Congress was sworn in earlier this month, 535 people swore to protect, defend and uphold the Constitution. Did this set the world record for the most people telling the exact same lie at the exact same time?</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Not a single person in congress who swore an oath to the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Constitution</a> will keep it. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/congress?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#congress</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/nullify?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#nullify</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://t.co/SBiPRiA0ZV">pic.twitter.com/SBiPRiA0ZV</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1351206274734690309?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p class="entry-title dce-post-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/11/29/tench-coxe-on-state-vs-federal-power-under-the-constitution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tench Coxe on State vs Federal Power under the Constitution</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/29/you-should-barely-know-the-federal-government-exists/">You Should Barely Know the Federal Government Exists</a></p> <p class="entry-title"><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/16/the-nature-of-the-federal-government/">The Nature of the Federal Government</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/a-world-record-for-lying/">A World Record For Lying?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Audio/Video Congress Maharrey Minute Federal Power Oath Mike Maharrey Big-Tech More Powerful than the U.S. Government? Not Even Close https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/19/big-tech-more-powerful-than-the-u-s-government-not-even-close/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:93added1-a1da-e6ee-c51d-d7c02817ca08 Tue, 19 Jan 2021 17:31:07 +0000 <p>While big-tech censorship is concerning, it's absurd to claim Facebook and Amazon have more power than the federal government in Washington D.C., the largest government in the history of the world.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/19/big-tech-more-powerful-than-the-u-s-government-not-even-close/">Big-Tech More Powerful than the U.S. Government? Not Even Close</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>While big-tech censorship is concerning, it&#8217;s absurd to claim Facebook and Amazon have more power than the federal government in Washington D.C., the largest government in the history of the world.</p> <p>But that&#8217;s the kind of message we&#8217;re hearing more and more these days. Some have even asserted that these private tech companies have &#8220;more power than all three branches of the federal government.&#8221;</p> <p>While mainstream media &#8211; and even the social kind &#8211; generally amplify messages that support the empire &#8211; they’re certainly not the ones with the standing army &#8211; or the ones using it to kill people around the world.</p> <p>It&#8217;s important to remember that social media is literally designed to amplify the mainstream view &#8211; the popular one. As more people click on a post or &#8220;like&#8221; it &#8211; the more the algorithm shows it to new people. So, the real problem is that big-government is something that a lot of people like.</p> <p>That&#8217;s a function of the education system. Personally, I think that&#8217;s a much bigger problem. If people weren’t taught from birth that government is the solution to every problem under the sun, maybe “alternative” views would be more….mainstream.</p> <p>Oh &#8211; and the education system is run by government, not Facebook.</p> <p>When people are getting slaughtered in Yemen, it&#8217;s not Twitter doing it. That’s <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/05/the-unconstitutional-war-in-yemen-grinds-life-and-liberty-under-its-wheels/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a vassal state doing it with the support and funding of the U.S. imperial government</a>.</p> <p>When social media saves and stores your metadata &#8211; and more &#8211; the reason it&#8217;s dangerous is because they&#8217;re giving it to government. Or government is forcing them to turn it over.</p> <p>The National Firearms Act of 1934 was not enacted by Instagram. And neither was the Gun Control Act of 1968. The social media platforms weren&#8217;t the ones enforcing gun control at record levels. <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/24/report-trump-ramps-up-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control-for-third-straight-year/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">That was Trump</a> &#8211;the federal government.</p> <p>Civil asset forfeiture is legalized theft. Government agents &#8211; cops, FBI, and the like do this &#8211; not TikTok.</p> <p><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">I&#8217;m a big fan of the phrase </span><span class="r-18u37iz">#TaxationIsTheft</span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">. This is a good time to remind people that this is done by the IRS &#8211; and by companies that the IRS coerces into doing so.</span></p> <p>It&#8217;s the federal reserve printing money out of thin air and destroying the last remaining shreds of value in the USD &#8211; Jack isn&#8217;t doing that.</p> <p>I can guarantee you that Snapchat isn&#8217;t running the war on drugs. That&#8217;s government.</p> <p>You know who executes &#8220;no-knock&#8221; warrants?  Police &#8211; Government agents. And they do it with <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/09/how-the-supreme-court-and-the-incorporation-doctrine-helped-kill-breonna-taylor/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the backing of federal government judges</a> on the Supreme Court. Amazon isn&#8217;t doing that.</p> <p>Speaking of police and the Supreme Court &#8211; who <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/13/how-federal-courts-gave-us-qualified-immunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">created &#8220;qualified immunity&#8221; out of thin air</a> and forced it on all 50 states? No, it wasn&#8217;t social media. It was government.</p> <p>A lot of people died due to the economic sanctions enforced on Iraq &#8211; before a full-scale invasion that killed even more people. I don&#8217;t recall YouTube doing that. It was the imperial government in Washington D.C.</p> <p><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">So, in case you didn&#8217;t notice, yes, I&#8217;m <strong><em>much</em></strong> more concerned about <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-biggest-most-powerful-government-in-the-history-of-the-world/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the biggest and most powerful government in the history of the world</a> &#8211; the former &#8220;federal&#8221; government in Washington D.C. &#8211; than&#8230;.well, anything when it comes to the future of </span><span class="r-18u37iz">liberty</span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">. </span></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/19/big-tech-more-powerful-than-the-u-s-government-not-even-close/">Big-Tech More Powerful than the U.S. Government? Not Even Close</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Current Events Federal Power Federal Programs Big Tech government power Social Media Michael Boldin Was This Emailer Drunk? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/was-this-emailer-drunk/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:20957caa-8960-67dc-c393-01b809d6db38 Mon, 18 Jan 2021 22:15:46 +0000 <p>I get some - interesting - emails in my Tenth Amendment Center inbox.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/was-this-emailer-drunk/">Was This Emailer Drunk?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p>I get some &#8211; interesting &#8211; emails in my Tenth Amendment Center inbox.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Our goal is the same no matter which person sits in the White House: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Nullify?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Nullify</a> all their unconstitutional acts into oblivion. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/liberty?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#liberty</a> <a href="https://t.co/vWd1Nrc09m">pic.twitter.com/vWd1Nrc09m</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1350128550947393537?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 15, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p>I got one the other day and my first reaction was, &#8220;Is this guy drunk?&#8221; I have no clue about his alcohol consumption, but I do know he doesn&#8217;t get what the Tenth Amendment Center does. Hint &#8211; we don&#8217;t care about presidents.</p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p class="pt-cv-title"><a class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification-overview/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nullification</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">State of the Nullification Movement Report</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/was-this-emailer-drunk/">Was This Emailer Drunk?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute government power Nullification President Biden President Trump Mike Maharrey Missouri Bill Would Opt the State Out of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/missouri-bill-would-opt-the-state-out-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:601c0f3c-8d3b-c700-b5bb-20c475717a2f Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:58:12 +0000 <p>The proposed law would prohibit Missouri law enforcement agencies or prosecutors from entering into agreements to transfer seized property to a federal agency by way of adoption or other means for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under federal law.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/missouri-bill-would-opt-the-state-out-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/">Missouri Bill Would Opt the State Out of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (Jan 18, 2021) – A bill introduced in the Missouri House would close a loophole allowing state and local police to circumvent stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government.<span id="more-36117"></span></p> <p>Rep. Tony Lovasco (R-O’Fallon) filed House Bill 750 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/HB750/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB750</a>) on Jan. 7. The proposed law would prohibit Missouri law enforcement agencies or prosecutors from entering into agreements to transfer seized property to a federal agency by way of adoption or other means for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under federal law.</p> <p>The proposed law would also require any Missouri law enforcement agency participating in a joint task force with federal agencies to transfer responsibility for the seized property to a state prosecutor for forfeiture under state law. Additionally, if a federal agency prohibits the transfer of the property to the state, the law enforcement agency would be fully “prohibited from accepting payment of any kind or distribution of forfeiture proceeds from the federal agency.</p> <p>In effect, HB750 would withdraw Missouri from the federal program known as <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/federal-asset-forfeiture-program-helps-local-police-steal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">equitable sharing</a>. This is particularly important in light of a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/30/states-can-thwart-new-doj-asset-forfeiture-policy/">policy directive issued in July 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> for the Department of Justice (DOJ) that remains in effect today.</p> <p><strong>NECESSARY</strong></p> <p>While some people believe the Supreme Court “ended asset forfeiture,” the recent opinion in <i>Timbs v. Indiana</i> ended nothing. Without further action, civil asset forfeiture remains. Additionally, as law professor <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/20/supreme-court-rules-that-excessive-fines">Ilya Somin noted</a>, the Court left an important issue unresolved. What exactly counts as “excessive” in the civil forfeiture context?</p> <blockquote><p>“That is likely to be a hotly contested issue in the lower federal courts over the next few years. The ultimate effect of today’s decision depends in large part on how that question is resolved. If courts rule that only a few unusually extreme cases qualify as excessive, the impact of Timbs might be relatively marginal.”</p></blockquote> <p>Going forward, opponents of civil asset forfeiture could wait and see how lower federal courts will address this “over the next few years,” or they can do what a number of states have already taken steps to do, end the practice on a state level, and opt out of the federal equitable sharing program as well.</p> <p><strong>IN EFFECT</strong></p> <p>Missouri has some of the best state-level forfeiture restrictions in the country, <a href="http://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-missouri/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">according to the Institute for Justice</a>. The state requires a criminal conviction before prosecutors can proceed with forfeiture, and law enforcement agencies don’t get a cut of the proceeds. But federal asset forfeiture standards are much lower. As a result, state and local police often pass cases to the feds to avoid the more stringent state laws.</p> <p>The situation in California was similar until recently. The Golden State state also has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but until <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the state closed the loophole</a>, law enforcement agencies would often bypass the state restrictions by partnering with the federal government through the equitable sharing asset forfeiture program.</p> <p>Under these arrangements, state officials can simply hand over forfeiture prosecutions to the federal government and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds—even when state law banned or limited the practice. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. During the 2016 legislative session, the state closed the loophole.</p> <p>Like California, Missouri was also among the states with the highest level of federal forfeiture between 2000 and 2013, raking in $126 million in Department of Justice equitable sharing proceeds during that time.</p> <p>Passage of HB750 would close the loophole and significantly increase protections for Missouri property owners.</p> <p>As the Tenth Amendment Center <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/09/feds-meddling-in-attempt-to-undermine-state-asset-forfeiture-reform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">previously reported</a> the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.</p> <p>Why?</p> <p>We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT<br /> </strong></p> <p>At the time of this report, HB750 had not been referred to a committee. Once it receives a committee assignment, it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/missouri-bill-would-opt-the-state-out-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/">Missouri Bill Would Opt the State Out of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing HB750 Missouri Policing for Profit Mike Maharrey Texas Bill Would Draw a Line in the Sand on Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/texas-bill-would-draw-a-line-in-the-sand-on-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4e8752c1-5bc5-31eb-a640-6f8116bd070a Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:49:13 +0000 <p>AUSTIN, Texas (Jan. 18, 2021) &#8211; A bill prefiled in the Texas House for the 2021 legislative session would set the foundation to nullify future federal gun control in practice and effect. Rep. Ben Leman (R-Brenham) prefiled HB 919 (HB919) on Dec. 30. The bill prohibits state agencies and law enforcement officers from having “contract [&#8230;]</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/texas-bill-would-draw-a-line-in-the-sand-on-federal-gun-control/">Texas Bill Would Draw a Line in the Sand on Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>AUSTIN</strong>, Texas (Jan. 18, 2021) &#8211; A bill prefiled in the Texas House for the 2021 legislative session would set the foundation to nullify future federal gun control in practice and effect.<span id="more-36111"></span></p> <p>Rep. Ben Leman (R-Brenham) prefiled HB 919 (<a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=87R&amp;Bill=HB919" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB919</a>) on Dec. 30. The bill prohibits state agencies and law enforcement officers from having “contract with or in any other manner provide assistance to a federal agency or official with respect to the enforcement of a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation purporting to regulate a firearm, a firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition if the statute, order, rule, or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation, such as a capacity or size limitation or a registration requirement, that does not exist under the laws of this state&#8221; that was enacted after September 2021.</p> <p>The legislation also prohibits agencies from receiving grants if it is conditional upon enforcing federal gun control. The proposed law would create a process to file complaints with the attorney general if state agencies or law enforcement officers violate this policy. The attorney general would also be required to defend any state agency sued by the federal government for refusing to enforce federal gun laws.</p> <p>HB919 is similar to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/texas-bill-would-take-on-future-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB112</a>, also filed for the 2021 session &#8211; setting any new federal gun control in its sights. HB635 takes a broader approach, using the same strategy for all federal gun control measures &#8211; past, present or future &#8211; that are not laws on the books in the state of Texas. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/12/texas-bill-would-set-the-foundation-for-a-gun-rights-sanctuary-state/">Read about it here</a>.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control schemes, the states can effectively bring them down.”</p> <p>Boldin also noted how the same strategy is being used effectively elsewhere.</p> <p>“No one – and I mean no one – is arguing that immigration sanctuary cities aren’t having an effect on federal immigration law. This bill in Texas uses the same approach of withdrawing resources and enforcement support, but it takes on federal gun control,” he said. “More conservative states should do the exact same thing.”</p> <p>HB919 represents a strategic, yet powerful step forward. If it passes into law, gun rights activists should then direct their strategy and resources towards repealing state restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Every repeal would then include an immediate ban on resources for enforcement of any similar future federal law or regulation.</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>HB919 rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">anti-commandeering doctrine</a> is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>At the time of this report, HB919 had not been assigned to a committee. Once it receives a committee assignment, it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/texas-bill-would-draw-a-line-in-the-sand-on-federal-gun-control/">Texas Bill Would Draw a Line in the Sand on Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills firearms HB919 second amendment Texas TJ Martinell Indiana Bill Would Prohibit “No-Knock” Warrants https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/indiana-bill-would-prohibit-no-knock-warrants/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:fbc737b3-1b10-8013-683f-75b1b8351e0c Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:45:21 +0000 <p>The legislation would prohibit police from seeking, executing, or participating in the execution of a search warrant that does not require the persons executing the warrant to knock and announce themselves and their purpose. The bill also specifies three steps police must take when executing a warrant.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/indiana-bill-would-prohibit-no-knock-warrants/">Indiana Bill Would Prohibit “No-Knock” Warrants</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>INDIANAPOLIS</strong>, Ind. (Jan 18, 2021) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Indiana Senate would prohibit “no-knock” warrants and take a step toward nullifying several Supreme Court opinions in practice and effect.<span id="more-36119"></span></p> <p>Sen. Eddie Melton (D) introduced Senate Bill 269 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/IN/bill/SB0269/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB269</a>) on Jan. 11. The legislation would prohibit police from seeking, executing, or participating in the execution of a search warrant that does not require the persons executing the warrant to knock and announce themselves and their purpose. The bill also specifies three steps police must take when executing a warrant.</p> <blockquote><p>(A) physically knock on an entry door to the premises in a manner and for a period of time that the knocking can be heard by the occupants;<br /> (B) clearly announce in a manner that can be heard by the occupants that law enforcement is executing a search warrant; and<br /> (C) wait for a reasonable amount of time for occupants to respond, but at least for ten (10)seconds, before entering the premises.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>Nullifying the Supreme Court</strong></p> <p>Passage of SB269 would take a big step toward effectively nullifying and making irrelevant several Supreme Court opinions that give police across the U.S. legal cover for conducting no-knock raids.</p> <p>In the 1995 case <em><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15506865603077276139&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wilson v. Arkansas</a></em>, the Supreme Court established that police must peacefully knock, announce their presence, and allow time for the occupants to open the door before entering a home to serve a warrant. But the Court allowed for “exigent circumstance” exceptions if police fear violence, if the suspect is a flight risk, or if officers fear the suspect will destroy evidence.</p> <p>As journalist <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/03/no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-was-illegal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Radley Balko notes</a>, police utilized this exception to the fullest extent, “simply declaring in search warrant affidavits that <i>all</i> drug dealers are a threat to dispose of evidence, flee or assault the officers at the door.”</p> <p>The SCOTUS eliminated this blanket exception in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10920539616941250099&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i>Richards v. Wisconsin</i></a>  (1997) requiring police to show why a specific individual is a threat to dispose of evidence, commit an act of violence or flee from police. But even with the opinion, the bar for obtaining a no-knock warrant remains low.</p> <blockquote><p>“In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a <strong>reasonable suspicion</strong> that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” [Emphasis added]</p></blockquote> <p>Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low legal bar to meet. Through this exception, police can justify no-knock entry on any warrant application. In effect, the parameters in the SCOTUS ruling make no-knock the norm instead of the exception.</p> <p>A third Supreme Court ruling effectively eliminated the consequences for violating the “knock and announce” requirement even without a no-knock warrant. In <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1360.pdf">Hudson v. Michigan</a></em> (2006), the High Court held that evidence seized in violation of knock and announce was not subject to the exclusionary rule. In other words, police could still use the evidence in court even though they technically gathered it illegally.</p> <p>Significantly, were it not for the dubious “<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>” made up by the Supreme Crout based on the 14th Amendment that purportedly empowers the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, these cases would have never gone to federal court and we wouldn’t have these blanket rules.</p> <p>Without specific restrictions from the state, police officers generally operate within the parameters set by the High Court. By passing restrictions on no-knock warrants, states set standards that go beyond the Supreme Court limits and in effect, nullify the SCOTUS opinion.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB269 was referred to the <a href="http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2021/committees/corrections_and_criminal_law_3000" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senate Corrections &amp; Criminal Law Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/indiana-bill-would-prohibit-no-knock-warrants/">Indiana Bill Would Prohibit “No-Knock” Warrants</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Police State Bills Courts Indiana no-knock warrant Police-State SB269 Mike Maharrey When Our Rights are Invaded: The Founders on Precedent and Resistance https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/when-our-rights-are-invaded-the-founders-on-precedent-and-resistance/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:bf39d403-81c4-3435-c661-4450d9e8c26d Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:45:01 +0000 <p>As Thomas Jefferson warned us, to take a “single step” beyond the limits of the constitution is to take a “boundless field of power.” He was far from alone. As students of history, leading Founders like John Dickinson and George Washington also recognized that any precedent for more power represented a dangerous expansion. But that’s far from how precedents are treated today.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/when-our-rights-are-invaded-the-founders-on-precedent-and-resistance/">When Our Rights are Invaded: The Founders on Precedent and Resistance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p>As Thomas Jefferson warned us, to take a “single step” beyond the limits of the constitution is to take a “boundless field of power.” He was far from alone. As students of history, leading Founders like John Dickinson and George Washington also recognized that any precedent for more power represented a dangerous expansion. But that’s far from how precedents are treated today.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: January 18, 2021 <span id="more-36122"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/lMhpJ2K3BNk?start=70" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-real-constitutional-crisis/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Vance: Real Constitutional Crisis</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">30 enumerated powers</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-09-02-0209" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey (6 Jan 1816)</a></p> <p>Samuel Adams as Valerius Poplicola in the Boston Gazette (5 Oct 1772)</p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-10-02-0341" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Jay to Thomas Jefferson (27 Oct 1786)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/george-washington-and-the-whiskey-rebellion/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion</a></p> <p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Washington&#8217;s Farewell Address</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/nullification-an-introduction/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Nullification: An Introduction</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-011521:9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1798369126996594" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-011521:9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/k7UNP4vDwjna/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/448f7a3a-c5de-4fff-baad-351257d57d09" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/c3758598-5822-42bf-b90e-36f16d91eae9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/874638211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1kvJpopYNLDGE" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+52plDVfGR" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CKExonzA2cU/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> LBRY: <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter">https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/when-our-rights-are-invaded-the-founders-on-precedent-and-resistance/">When Our Rights are Invaded: The Founders on Precedent and Resistance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Founding Fathers Path to Liberty Strategy George Washington History James Otis John Dickinson John Hancock thomas jefferson Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 31:30 As Thomas Jefferson warned us, to take a “single step” beyond the limits of the constitution is to take a “boundless field of power.” He was far from alone. As students of history, leading Founders like John Dickinson and George Washington also recogn... As Thomas Jefferson warned us, to take a “single step” beyond the limits of the constitution is to take a “boundless field of power.” He was far from alone. As students of history, leading Founders like John Dickinson and George Washington also recognized that any precedent for more power represented a dangerous expansion. But that’s far from how precedents are treated today.<br /> <br /> Path to Liberty: January 18, 2021 A Textualist/Originalist Case Against the Power to Impeach and Try Former Presidents https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/18/a-textualist-originalist-case-against-the-power-to-impeach-and-try-former-presidents/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:11e44e7d-7813-e277-446f-a881772fae4a Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:22:41 +0000 <p>Article II, Section 4 establishes the scope of the impeachment power: only officers can be impeached and tried, and only for high crimes or misdemeanors.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/18/a-textualist-originalist-case-against-the-power-to-impeach-and-try-former-presidents/">A Textualist/Originalist Case Against the Power to Impeach and Try Former Presidents</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>My co-bloggers have made powerful arguments for (<a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2021/01/impeaching-former-presidentsmike-rappaport.html">Mike Rappaport</a>, <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2021/01/convicting-former-presidentsjohn-vlahoplus.html">John Vlahoplus</a>) and against (<a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2021/01/impeachment-and-silver-blazeandrew-hyman.html">Andrew Hyman</a>, <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2021/01/additional-thoughts-on-impeachment-disqualification-and-former-presidentsdavid-weisberg.html">David Weisberg</a>) Congress&#8217; power to impeach and try former officers.  This post restates and expands the textualist/originalist case against Congress&#8217; power.</p> <p>To begin, a problem with interpreting the Constitution&#8217;s impeachment provisions is that they are scattered across three sections in two different articles.  The framers would have done better to draft a single impeachment section.  The order in which one reads the provisions is important to discerning their meaning.</p> <p>First, read the impeachment provisions this way:</p> <blockquote><p>The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.  The House of Representatives &#8230; shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.  The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. &#8230; [N]o Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.  Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.</p></blockquote> <p>This order makes much sense.  Read in this order, the natural interpretation is that the first sentence establishes the impeachment power.  It says who can be impeached (the President, etc.), what impeachment accomplishes (removal from office), and for what one can be impeached (&#8220;high Crimes and Misdemeanors&#8221;).  The subsequent sentences describe how this impeachment power is distributed among institutions (the House impeaches, the Senate tries, with a supermajority conviction requirement).  The last sentence limits the scope and effect of punishment upon conviction.  In this reading, the disqualification clause appears ancillary &#8212; in addition to removal from office, the Senate can add disqualification (thus the conjunctive &#8220;and&#8221;).</p> <p>But the provisions could be read in a different order:</p> <blockquote><p>The House of Representatives &#8230; shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.  The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. &#8230; [N]o Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.  Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.</p></blockquote> <p>Now the opening sentences convey an undefined power of impeachment (whatever that may mean) divided between the House and Senate.  The subsequent sentences limit the power: punishment can be only removal or disqualification, and (in the last sentence) it is directed that if a sitting President or other officer is impeached and convicted for high crimes or misdemeanors, they &#8220;shall&#8221; be removed (no discretion).  This appears to be the reading given by John Vlahoplus <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2021/01/convicting-former-presidentsjohn-vlahoplus.html">here</a>.</p> <p>The latter order has the advantage of being the order in which the sentences appear in the Constitution.  And I agree it is a possible reading.  But I think there are a number of reasons to prefer the former order.</p> <p>First, this appears to be the way the drafters thought about it.  At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates spent some time debating the sentence that became Article II, Section 4.  In particular, they debated whether &#8220;high Crimes and Misdemeanors&#8221; was the right standard.  The understanding seems to have been that this language defined and limited the impeachment power.  That is, they thought that if they adopted the &#8220;high Crimes and Misdemeanors&#8221; standard, there could not be impeachments for other types of actions that did not meet the standard.  In contrast, they did not spend much time at all on the general concept of impeachment, other than as defined in that sentence.  Thus they understood the sentence that became Article II, Section 4 as defining the impeachment power.  Their reading, in the sense of the alternatives stated above, began with Article II, Section 4.</p> <p>That approach is consistent with a related understanding reflected in the framing debates: the framers saw impeachment as principally about removal.  In the debates, that was the central focus.  They did not talk about the advantages or disadvantages of a general power of disqualification, or a general power of impeachment of private citizens.  That suggests that the drafters understood disqualification as an ancillary punishment that could be added to removal of officers, not as a freestanding punishment that could be wielded against private citizens.</p> <p>Second, the alternative reading of a largely unlimited impeachment power seems implausible.  The consequence of the second reading is that the House and Senate could impeach and try anyone for any reason.  The power wouldn&#8217;t be limited to officers or former officers, and it wouldn&#8217;t be limited to &#8220;high Crimes and Misdemeanors.&#8221; True, it would be limited by the scope of punishment: only removal from office or disqualification from future office.  But that is still an extraordinary power, and one not mentioned in the drafting or ratifying debates.</p> <p>Professor Rappaport, responding to an earlier version of this argument, <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2021/01/impeaching-former-presidentsmike-rappaport.html">says</a> that limits could be derived from eighteenth century English law.  As a general methodological approach, I agree.  But in my understanding, eighteenth century English law did not have any material limits on the impeachment power.  Impeachment was just a judicial proceeding in the parliament.  In particular, it was not clear that &#8220;high Crimes and Misdemeanors&#8221; was the required standard under English law.  Indeed, that is exactly why the framers had their debate over the language of Article II, Section 4.  They wanted to specify <em>which</em> standard from English law would govern American impeachments.</p> <p>Further, the common understanding in the post-ratification period and continuing to today is that Article II, Section 4 limits the impeachment power.  That is, people understood  that <em>only</em> officers (or perhaps former officers) could be impeached <em>only </em> for &#8220;high Crimes and Misdemeanors&#8221; &#8212; and they understood that this limit arose from Article II, Section 4.  For example, in the 1799 impeachment trial of William Blount, the central question was whether Blount (a former Senator) could be tried.  And the threshold question there was whether Senators are &#8220;Civil Officers of the United States.&#8221;  Blount was acquitted, and the outcome is commonly taken as indicating that Senators are not such officers (and so not subject to impeachment).  But this debate and conclusion makes sense only if Article II, Section 4 defines the scope of the impeachment power.</p> <p>It&#8217;s true that (very occasionally) the Senate held a trial after a former officer had left office (Blount, plus Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876, and perhaps one or two others).  But in each case the principal claim was that the impeachment power attached to the officer when that officer was in office (and thus that the limits of Article II, Section 4 were satisfied).  But in any event these are scattered precedents &#8212; by far the more significant precedent is the longstanding assumption that the Senate cannot try private citizens and cannot try people other than for high crimes and misdemeanors.</p> <p>In sum, my view is that the best reading of the text&#8217;s original meaning is that Article II, Section 4 defines the impeachment power.  It provides a way to remove sitting officers for specified misconduct.  It does not do more than that.  Article I, Section 3 adds that the Senate, in removing an officer pursuant to this power, may also impose future disqualification (removal &#8220;and&#8221; disqualification).</p> <p>There are three main counterarguments.  The first is that it would be implausible (even &#8220;absurd&#8221;) to allow an officer to escape future disqualification by the fortuity of the officer&#8217;s term expiring or the expediency of an abrupt resignation.  One could respond to this claim by implying a power to try officers who resigned, or whose terms expired, after being impeached (as <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2021/01/impeachment-and-silver-blazeandrew-hyman.html">Andrew Hyman</a> and <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2021/01/keith-whittington-on-the-timing-of-impeachmentmichael-ramsey.html">Keith Whittington</a>, respectively, suggest).  But in addition to being atextual, I don&#8217;t think the power&#8217;s purpose compels it. As discussed, the framers&#8217; central focus in creating impeachment power was removal of a miscreant officer, before the officer could do further damage.  Once the officer resigned or left office, that purpose would be accomplished.  And the threat of future disqualification upon conviction might be seen as an incentive to leave office without contesting the impeachment (sort of in the nature of an implicit plea bargain).  One may speculate which approach better suits the framers&#8217; purposes.  But neither seems absurd or implausible.  A narrow reading (limited to sitting officers) accomplishes the framers&#8217; central purpose of removal.</p> <p>Second, it&#8217;s argued that English law (and some post-Revolution state practice) allowed impeachment of private citizens.  I agree that this would be highly relevant if the Constitution&#8217;s text didn&#8217;t establish its own limits.  But it&#8217;s quite plausible that the framers wanted to limit the scope of impeachment as compared to English law.  We know they did with respect to some aspects, including the extent of punishment.</p> <p>The third counterargument relies on precedent &#8212; especially the Belknap precedent mentioned above.  I&#8217;m surprised that anyone (especially any originalist or traditionalist) regards this precedent as meaning anything. It occurred 88 years after ratification (so not indicative at all of original meaning); it was a single incident almost 150 years ago (so not indicative of an common historical practice).  Moreover, it occurred in a highly partisan atmosphere.  The Democrats, in the midst of the intense post-war debate over reconstruction, had recently regained control of Congress and were anxious to further embarrass the scandal-plagued Grant administration in the run-up to the 1876 elections.  Ultimately Belknap was acquitted, with voting largely on partisan lines.  This does not seem a reliable exposition of constitutional principle.  (Perhaps there are other meaningful precedents &#8212; some have mentioned the Blount impeachment, which also seems inconclusive &#8212; but the surprising focus on Belknap indicates that there aren&#8217;t others).</p> <p>As a result, neither purpose nor precedent seems strong enough to overcome the simple textual argument: Article II, Section 4 establishes the scope of the impeachment power: only officers can be impeached and tried, and only for high crimes or misdemeanors.</p> <p><strong>NOTE:</strong> <em>This article was originally posted at <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2020/01/david-schwartz-on-originalism-and-indeterminacymichael-ramsey.html">The Originalism Blog</a>, “The Blog of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law,” and is reposted here with permission from the author.</em></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/18/a-textualist-originalist-case-against-the-power-to-impeach-and-try-former-presidents/">A Textualist/Originalist Case Against the Power to Impeach and Try Former Presidents</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Impeachment president Michael D. Ramsey Washington Bill Would Create State Process to End Police Qualified Immunity https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/washington-bill-would-create-state-process-to-end-police-qualified-immunity/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:2bb3e595-bdad-6b4b-40c8-8d746818fc76 Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:51:16 +0000 <p>A bill introduced in the Washington state House would create a process to sue police officers in state court for using excessive force or taking other actions that violate individual rights without the possibility of “qualified immunity” as a defense.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/washington-bill-would-create-state-process-to-end-police-qualified-immunity/">Washington Bill Would Create State Process to End Police Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>OLYMPIA</strong>, Wash. (Jan. 18, 2021) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Washington state House would create a process to sue police officers in state court for using excessive force or taking other actions that violate individual rights without the possibility of “qualified immunity” as a defense.<span id="more-36104"></span></p> <p>A coalition of 23 Democrats introduced House Bill 1202 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/bill/HB1202/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1202</a>) on Jan. 14. The legislation would create a cause of action for &#8220;any person injured in person or property by a peace officer acting under color of authority&#8221; to sue the offending officer and the department he works for in state court. Actions that would give cause include &#8220;conduct that under civil law constitutes an assault, battery, outrage, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, trespass, or conversion.&#8221; It would also cover &#8220;a detention, traffic stop, search, seizure, or entry into a home that is unlawful under the state Constitution&#8221; along with the violation of several state statutes.</p> <p>HB1202 specifies that qualified immunity is not a defense in cases brought under this statute.</p> <blockquote><p>It is not an immunity or defense to an action brought under this chapter that:<br /> (a) The rights, privileges, or immunities sued upon were not clearly established at the time of the act, omission, or decision by<br /> the peace officer or employer; or<br /> (b) At such time, that the state of the law was such that the peace officer or employer could not reasonably have been expected to know whether such act, omission, or decision was lawful.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>The Process </strong></p> <p>Typically, people sue police for using excessive force or other types of misconduct through the federal court system under the U.S. Bill of Rights. But <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/13/how-federal-courts-gave-us-qualified-immunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">federal courts created a qualified immunity defense out of thin air</a>, making it nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers responsible for actions taken in the line of duty. In order to move ahead with a suit, the plaintiff must establish that it was “clearly established” that the officer’s action was unconstitutional. The “clearly established” test erects an almost insurmountable hurdle to those trying to prove excessive force or a violation of their rights.</p> <p>Passage of HB1202 would create an alternative path in state court with no qualified immunity hurdle to clear.</p> <p>The language in the bill is similar to a law recently <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/signed-as-law-colorado-creates-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity-for-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed in Colorado</a>.</p> <p><strong>In Practice</strong></p> <p>It remains unclear how the state legal process would play out in practice.</p> <p>The first question is whether people will actually utilize the state courts instead of the federal process. Under the original constitutional system, it would have never been a federal issue to begin with. Regulation of police powers was clearly delegated to the states, not the federal government. But with the advent of the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>, people reflexively run to federal courts. But by removing the qualified immunity hurdle, it should incentivize people to take advantage of the state system.</p> <p>The second question is if police officers will be able to transfer cases to federal jurisdiction in order to take advantage of qualified immunity.</p> <p>State and local law enforcement officers working <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/16/joint-law-enforcement-task-forces-are-creating-a-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">on joint state/federal task forces</a> almost certainly would. They are effectively treated as federal agents.</p> <p>For Washington state law enforcement officers not operating with a federal task force, it seems unlikely they will be able to remove the case to federal court initially, but that door could open on appeal.</p> <p>One attorney the Tenth Amendment Center talked to said that it might be possible for officers to have their case removed to federal court to consider U.S. constitutional ramifications. But he said even then, he thinks federal courts would have to respect the state law prohibiting qualified immunity as a defense. The federal court would likely have to apply the state law as the state intended, even though the federal court might well be able to decide whether or not a U.S. constitutional violation had taken place.</p> <p>Regardless, a process operating totally under the state constitution will be much less likely to end up in federal court than a process that depends on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The state process will make it more difficult for police to simply side-step civil suits by declaring sovereign immunity up front.</p> <p><strong>Moving Forward </strong></p> <p>The Supreme Court shows no interest in rolling back its qualified immunity doctrine. In fact, the High Court recently rejected several cases that would have allowed it to revisit the issue. For instance, the SCOTUS let stand an <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715566.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eleventh Circuit decision</a> granting immunity to a police officer who shot a ten-year-old child in the back of the knee, while repeatedly attempting to shoot a pet dog that wasn’t threatening anyone.</p> <p>Congress could prohibit qualified immunity. <a href="https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-end-qualified-immunity" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A bill</a> sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.) and  Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) during the last Congress would have done just that, but it was never taken up. Congress does not have a good track recorded on reining in government power.</p> <p>The best path forward is to bypass the federal system as Colorado has already done and Washington state will consider</p> <p>Other states should follow their lead and create state processes to hold their police officers accountable. With the evolution of qualified immunity, the federal process is an abject failure. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote in the 1986 case <em>Malley v. Briggs</em>, qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-immunity-scotus-snapshot/six-takeaways-from-reuters-investigation-of-police-violence-and-qualified-immunity-idUSKBN22K1AM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Reuters</em> called it</a> “a highly effective shield in thousands of lawsuits seeking to hold cops accountable for using excessive force.”</p> <p>Attorney and activist Dave Roland called on Missouri to adopt a similar process in <a href="https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/dave-roland-no-more-excuses-hold-law-enforcement-officials-accountable/article_9d627981-1950-5858-abd9-d14cf587def6.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an op-ed published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>A consensus has developed — crossing all party and ideological lines — for the proposition that qualified immunity is an evil that should be undone. At the federal level either the Supreme Court or Congress could undo it, but thus far neither has seen fit to act. Justice in Missouri, however, does not need to wait on Washington — the Legislature can and should adopt a Missouri statute that allows citizens to sue government officials who have violated citizens’ constitutional rights.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB1202 was referred to the House Civil Rights &amp; Judiciary Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/washington-bill-would-create-state-process-to-end-police-qualified-immunity/">Washington Bill Would Create State Process to End Police Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Qualified Immunity State Bills Courts HB1202 Incorporation Doctrine Police Police-State Washington Mike Maharrey Indiana Bill Would Legalize Recreational Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/indiana-bill-would-legalize-recreational-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:133e8781-bc18-107f-abc2-a436384900ab Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:05:19 +0000 <p>The legislation would legalize possession of cannabis and marijuana paraphernalia for people over 21. It would also legalize the cultivation and sale of marijuana. HB1154 would create a Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA)  which would oversee growers, processors, dispensaries, and cannabis researchers.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/indiana-bill-would-legalize-recreational-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Indiana Bill Would Legalize Recreational Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>INDIANAPOLIS</strong>, Ind. (Jan. 18, 2021) &#8211; A bill filed in the Indiana House would legalize marijuana in the state despite federal prohibition.<span id="more-36068"></span></p> <p>Last week, Vanessa Summers (D) Introduced Indiana House Bill 1154 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/IN/bill/HB1154/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1154</a>). The legislation would legalize possession of cannabis and marijuana paraphernalia for people over 21. It would also legalize the cultivation and sale of marijuana. HB1154 would also create a Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA)  which would oversee growers, processors, dispensaries, and cannabis researchers.</p> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</strong></p> <p>The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>The legalization of marijuana for personal use in Indiana would take the next step and remove another layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state even though federal prohibition would remain in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><strong>A GROWING MOVEMENT</strong></p> <p>Indiana could join a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/"> became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Illinois followed suit</a> in 2019. During the November election, Arizona, Montana New Jersey and South Dakota voters approved marijuana legalization.</p> <p>With 36 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, and 15 legalizing for adult recreational use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB1154 was referred to the <a href="http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2021/committees/courts_and_criminal_code_0300">House Courts and Criminal Code Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote to continue in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/indiana-bill-would-legalize-recreational-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Indiana Bill Would Legalize Recreational Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis HB1154 Indiana Marijuana Amanda Bowers New York Bills Would Limit ALPR Use and Data Retention, Help Block National License Plate Tracking https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-york-bills-would-limit-alpr-use-and-data-retention-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:36c12ea0-94fa-6253-d6af-1ccd8329a5c0 Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:05:02 +0000 <p>Bills introduced in the New York House and Senate would place stringent restrictions on the use of automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) by state law enforcement agencies. Passage into law would also place significant roadblocks in the way of a federal program using states to help track the location of millions of everyday people through pictures of their license plates.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-york-bills-would-limit-alpr-use-and-data-retention-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking/">New York Bills Would Limit ALPR Use and Data Retention, Help Block National License Plate Tracking</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>ALBANY</strong>, NY (Jan. 18, 2021) – Bills introduced in the New York House and Senate would place stringent restrictions on the use of automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) by state law enforcement agencies. Passage into law would also place significant roadblocks in the way of a federal program using states to help track the location of millions of everyday people through pictures of their license plates.<span id="more-36078"></span></p> <p>Asm. Amy Paulin (D-White Plains) introduced Assembly Bill 940 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/A00940/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A940</a>) on Jan. 6. Sen. Brad Hoylman (D-NYC) introduced the companion in the Senate (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/S00685/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">S685</a>) on the same day. The legislation would strictly limit ALPR use to specific law enforcement applications. The bills would also place stringent restraints on how gathered data is retained and shared.</p> <blockquote><p>“<em>Captured plate data obtained for the purposes described under this section shall not be used or shared for any other purpose and shall not be preserved for more than one hundred eighty days except pursuant to a preservation or disclosure request under this subdivision, or a warrant.”</em></p></blockquote> <p>Captured plate data would have to be destroyed by the operator of the ALPR system when an application for a disclosure order is denied or at the end of 14 days, whichever is later.</p> <p>A940/S685 would prohibit the sale, trading, or exchanging captured license plate data for <em>any </em>purpose. Under the proposed law, any data captured or improperly maintained could not be introduced by the state in any grand jury or a criminal court proceeding or in any civil or administrative proceeding brought by the state or any government office or official.</p> <p>The legislation would also ban the use of ALPRs by non-law enforcement agencies in most cases-effectively prohibiting potential, non-state bad actors from utilizing this dangerous and invasive technology against private citizens for nefarious purposes.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>As reported in the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spies-on-millions-of-cars-1422314779?autologin=y" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i>Wall Street Journal</i></a>, the federal government, via the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), tracks the location of millions of vehicles through data provided by ALPRs operated on a state and local level. They’ve engaged in this for nearly a decade, all without a warrant, or even public notice of the policy.</p> <p>State and local law enforcement agencies operate most of these tracking systems, paid for by federal grant money. The DEA then taps into the local database to track the whereabouts of millions of people – for the “crime” of driving – without having to operate a huge network itself.</p> <p>ALPRs can scan, capture and record thousands of license plates every minute and store them in massive databases, along with date, time and location information.</p> <p>Records <a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-reader-dataset" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation</a> (EFF) through open records requests encompassed information compiled by 200 law enforcement agencies that utilize ALPRs. The data revealed more than <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/2-5-billion-surveillance-state-goes-wild-good-morning-liberty-11-16-18/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2.5 billion license plate scans</a> in just two years (2016 and 2017).</p> <p>Perhaps more concerning, this gigantic sample of license plate scans reveals that 99.5 percent of this data was collected regardless of whether the vehicle or its owner were suspected of being involved in criminal activity. On average, agencies share this data with a minimum of <b>160 other agencies</b>. In some cases, agencies share this data with as many as <b>800 other agencies</b>.</p> <p>Private companies contribute to the proliferation of ALPR databases. In late 2019, <a href="https://rekorsystems.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rekor Systems</a> announced that they had launched the <a href="https://rekorsystems.com/news/rekor-systems-launches-public-safety-network/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rekor Public Safety Network</a> (RPSN) which gives law enforcement real-time access to license plates.</p> <blockquote><p>“Any state or local law enforcement agency participating in the RPSN will be able to access real-time data from any part of the network at no cost. The Company is initially launching the network by aggregating vehicle data from customers in over 30 states. With thousands of automatic license plate reading cameras currently in service that capture approximately 150 million plate reads per month, the network is expected to be live by the first quarter of 2020.”</p></blockquote> <p>Police generally configure ALPRs to store the photograph, the license plate number, and the date, time, and location of a vehicle’s license plate, which is bad enough. But according to <a href="https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/071613-aclu-alprreport-opt-v05.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">records obtained by the ACLU</a> via a Freedom of Information Act request, these systems also capture photographs of drivers and their passengers.</p> <p>With the FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolling out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, and the federal government building <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a giant biometric database</a> with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends, the feds can potentially access stored photographs of drivers and passengers, along with detailed data revealing their location and activities. With this kind of information, government agents can easily find individuals without warrants or oversight, for any reason whatsoever.</p> <p>Since a majority of federal license plate tracking data comes from state and local law enforcement, laws banning or even restricting ALPR use are essential. As more states pass such laws, the end result becomes more clear. No data equals no federal license plate tracking program.</p> <p>Passage of A940/S685 would represent a good first step toward putting a big dent in federal plans to continue location tracking and expanding its facial recognition program. The less data that states make available to the federal government, the less ability it has to track people in Massachusetts and elsewhere.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>A940 was referred to the House Government Operations Committee. S685 was referred to the Senate Consumer protection committee. The bills must pass their respective committees by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-york-bills-would-limit-alpr-use-and-data-retention-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking/">New York Bills Would Limit ALPR Use and Data Retention, Help Block National License Plate Tracking</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. License Plate Tracking State Bills A940 ALPR automatic license plate reader Fourth Amendment Privacy S685 surveillance Mike Maharrey Washington State Bill Would Put 5-Year Ban on Facial Recognition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/washington-state-bill-would-put-5-year-ban-on-facial-recognition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:c486ca80-7177-83eb-94f4-e31afc19edb9 Fri, 15 Jan 2021 19:04:22 +0000 <p>A bill introduced in the Washington state Senate would ban government use of facial recognition technology for five years. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in Washington; it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/washington-state-bill-would-put-5-year-ban-on-facial-recognition/">Washington State Bill Would Put 5-Year Ban on Facial Recognition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>OLYMPIA</strong>, Wash. (Jan. 15, 2021) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Washington state Senate would ban government use of facial recognition technology for five years. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in Washington; it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-36101"></span></p> <p>Sen. Bob Hasegawa (D-Beacon Hill) introduced Senate Bill 5104 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/bill/SB5104/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB5104</a>) on Jan. 11. The legislation would put a 5-year moratorium on the use of facial recognition technology by any state or local government agency. Under the law, police and other government officials would be prohibited from obtaining, retaining, requesting, accessing, or using any facial recognition tech or information obtained using facial recognition. The proposed law would bar the use of information obtained using facial recognition as evidence in a trial or other government hearing.</p> <p>SB5104 would also limit the use of some private facial recognition systems. It would prohibit facial recognition &#8220;in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, as defined in RCW 49.60.040.&#8221;</p> <p>The bill would create a joint legislative task force on facial recognition technology to study the issue during the moratorium.</p> <p>While only a temporary ban, it would give activists and legislators time to implement more permanent restrictions and protect the privacy of Washingtonians in the meantime. It would also slow the collection of facial recognition data by the federal government and hinder the creation of a nationwide facial recognition database.</p> <p>This legislation is part of a broader nationwide movement to limit this invasive surveillance technology at the local and state level. The New York governor recently <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/12/signed-by-the-governor-new-york-puts-moratorium-on-facial-recognition-in-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">signed a bill into law</a> putting a moratorium on the use of facial recognition in schools, and the California governor <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/signed-as-law-california-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">signed a bill</a> that imposes a 3-year ban on the use of the tech in conjunction with police body-worn cameras, leading to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/san-diego-shuts-down-massive-facial-recognition-system-to-comply-with-new-california-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the shutdown of one of the biggest facial recognition programs in the country</a>.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>A <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recent report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/31/local-state-and-federal-law-enforcement-partnering-to-create-massive-facial-recognition-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a massive, nationwide facial recognition system</a> for years.</p> <p>The FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.</p> <p>In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at <a href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">perpetuallineup.org</a>. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.</p> <blockquote><p>“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/study-lack-of-face-recognition-oversight-threatens-privacy-of-millions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clare Garvie said</a>. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”</p></blockquote> <p>There are <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">many technical and legal problems</a> with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8wa8/amazons-facial-recognition-misidentified-1-in-5-california-lawmakers-as-criminals" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature</a> as people in a database of arrest photos.</p> <p>With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.</p> <p>In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras</a> equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of state laws and local ordinances banning and limiting facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB5104 was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy &amp; Technology where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/washington-state-bill-would-put-5-year-ban-on-facial-recognition/">Washington State Bill Would Put 5-Year Ban on Facial Recognition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Facial Recognition State Bills facial recognition Fourth Amendment Privacy SB5104 surveillance Washington Mike Maharrey California Bill Would Place Limits on ALPR Data Retention, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/california-bill-would-place-limits-on-alpr-data-retention-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:85629c8a-da24-b623-9a04-7f4d0ba79189 Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:56:26 +0000 <p>A bill filed in the California Senate would limit the storage and sharing of information collected by Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in the state. The proposed law would also place significant roadblocks in the way of a federal program using states to help track the location of millions of everyday people through pictures of their license plates.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/california-bill-would-place-limits-on-alpr-data-retention-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking/">California Bill Would Place Limits on ALPR Data Retention, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>SACRAMENTO</strong>, Calif. (Jan 15, 2021) &#8211; A bill filed in the California Senate would limit the storage and sharing of information collected by Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in the state. The proposed law would also place significant roadblocks in the way of a federal program using states to help track the location of millions of everyday people through pictures of their license plates.<span id="more-36102"></span></p> <p>Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced Senate Bill 210 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB210/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB210</a>) on Jan. 12. The legislation would prohibit the retention of <a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-readers-alpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ALPR</a> data for more than 60 days unless it was being used as evidence or for the investigation of felonies.</p> <p>Current law limits the sharing of ALPR data to specified purposes and requires agencies to create a publicly available usage policy. SB210 would include in those usage and privacy policies a requirement that ALPR data that does not match a hotlist be destroyed within 24 hours.</p> <p>SB210 includes important transparency provisions, including an annual audit to review ALPR end-user searches during the year. It would also require an ALPR operator that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to maintain a record of that access and require that ALPR information only be used for the authorized purposes described in the usage and privacy policy.</p> <p>California put some limits on ALPR data collection and sharing in 2015, but without transparency, it remains unclear if law enforcement is following the regulations. In fact, many suspect they aren&#8217;t. According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/12/california-police-automated-license-plate-readers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a report in <em>The Guardian</em></a>, &#8220;A 2019 <a href="https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/summary.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-link-name="in body link">audit of police forces</a> showed they were, in many cases, collecting excessive amounts of information and sharing them with hundreds of other agencies, often without clear reasoning.&#8221;</p> <p>Wiener told <em>The Guardian</em> there are &#8220;basically no constraints&#8221; on how ALPR data is collected and used in California.</p> <blockquote><p>“We were seeing that ALPR use in California was quickly becoming the wild west. It is violating people’s privacy, and we do not need a surveillance state in this country.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>As reported in the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spies-on-millions-of-cars-1422314779?autologin=y" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i>Wall Street Journal</i></a>, the federal government, via the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), tracks the location of millions of vehicles through data provided by ALPRs operated on a state and local level. They’ve engaged in this for nearly a decade, all without a warrant, or even public notice of the policy.</p> <p>State and local law enforcement agencies operate most of these tracking systems, paid for by federal grant money. The DEA then taps into the local database to track the whereabouts of millions of people – for the “crime” of driving – without having to operate a huge network itself.</p> <p>ALPRs can scan, capture and record thousands of license plates every minute and store them in massive databases, along with date, time and location information.</p> <p>Records <a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-reader-dataset" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation</a> (EFF) through open records requests encompassed information compiled by 200 law enforcement agencies that utilize ALPRs. The data revealed more than <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/2-5-billion-surveillance-state-goes-wild-good-morning-liberty-11-16-18/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2.5 billion license plate scans</a> in just two years (2016 and 2017).</p> <p>Perhaps more concerning, this gigantic sample of license plate scans reveals that 99.5 percent of this data was collected regardless of whether the vehicle or its owner were suspected of being involved in criminal activity. On average, agencies share this data with a minimum of <b>160 other agencies</b>. In some cases, agencies share this data with as many as <b>800 other agencies</b>.</p> <p>Private companies contribute to the proliferation of ALPR databases. In late 2019, <a href="https://rekorsystems.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rekor Systems</a> announced that they had launched the <a href="https://rekorsystems.com/news/rekor-systems-launches-public-safety-network/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rekor Public Safety Network</a> (RPSN) which gives law enforcement real-time access to license plates.</p> <blockquote><p>“Any state or local law enforcement agency participating in the RPSN will be able to access real-time data from any part of the network at no cost. The Company is initially launching the network by aggregating vehicle data from customers in over 30 states. With thousands of automatic license plate reading cameras currently in service that capture approximately 150 million plate reads per month, the network is expected to be live by the first quarter of 2020.”</p></blockquote> <p>Police generally configure ALPRs to store the photograph, the license plate number, and the date, time, and location of a vehicle’s license plate, which is bad enough. But according to <a href="https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/071613-aclu-alprreport-opt-v05.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">records obtained by the ACLU</a> via a Freedom of Information Act request, these systems also capture photographs of drivers and their passengers.</p> <p>With the FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolling out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, and the federal government building <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a giant biometric database</a> with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends, the feds can potentially access stored photographs of drivers and passengers, along with detailed data revealing their location and activities. With this kind of information, government agents can easily find individuals without warrants or oversight, for any reason whatsoever.</p> <p>Since a majority of federal license plate tracking data comes from state and local law enforcement, laws banning or even restricting ALPR use are essential. As more states pass such laws, the end result becomes more clear. No data equals no federal license plate tracking program.</p> <p>Passage of SB210 would take another step toward putting a big dent in federal plans to continue location tracking and expanding its facial recognition program. The less data that states make available to the federal government, the less ability it has to track people in Massachusetts and elsewhere.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB210 was referred to the Rules Committee for committee assignment. It will have to pass its assigned committee by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/california-bill-would-place-limits-on-alpr-data-retention-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking/">California Bill Would Place Limits on ALPR Data Retention, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. License Plate Tracking State Bills ALPR California Privacy SB210 surveillance Mike Maharrey The Real Constitutional Crisis We’re Facing https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/the-real-constitutional-crisis-were-facing/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:81b3908f-30e3-a0c5-c107-981ab23693cf Fri, 15 Jan 2021 17:55:09 +0000 <p>Most things people call a “crisis” are really just symptoms of a much deeper problem, our real “constitutional crisis.” The path forward starts with the Constitution, and get some insight in this episode from Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Samuel Adams, and George Washington.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/the-real-constitutional-crisis-were-facing/">The Real Constitutional Crisis We’re Facing</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p>Most things people call a “crisis” are really just symptoms of a much deeper problem, our real “constitutional crisis.” The path forward starts with the Constitution, and get some insight in this episode from Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Samuel Adams, and George Washington.</p> <p>Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: January 15, 2021 <span id="more-36098"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/cJMmso-YI-8" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-real-constitutional-crisis/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Vance: Real Constitutional Crisis</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">30 enumerated powers</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-09-02-0209" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey (6 Jan 1816)</a></p> <p>Samuel Adams as Valerius Poplicola in the Boston Gazette (5 Oct 1772)</p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-10-02-0341" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Jay to Thomas Jefferson (27 Oct 1786)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/george-washington-and-the-whiskey-rebellion/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion</a></p> <p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Washington&#8217;s Farewell Address</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/nullification-an-introduction/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Nullification: An Introduction</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-011321:7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=923432475086400" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/YZxTBSKdoh24/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/73ee1786-2de9-4c74-90a7-9bc5decf087a" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/47a97cf1-8aed-44c8-89e3-974159c63287" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/872190923" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1OdJrVwzzOOJX" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+3thSR9-MR" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> LBRY: <a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter">https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/the-real-constitutional-crisis-were-facing/">The Real Constitutional Crisis We’re Facing</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Audio/Video Founding Fathers Path to Liberty George Washington Ignorance thomas jefferson Usurpation Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 14:23 Most things people call a “crisis” are really just symptoms of a much deeper problem, our real “constitutional crisis.” The path forward starts with the Constitution, and get some insight in this episode from Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Samuel Adams, Most things people call a “crisis” are really just symptoms of a much deeper problem, our real “constitutional crisis.” The path forward starts with the Constitution, and get some insight in this episode from Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Samuel Adams, and George Washington. New York Bill Would Limit State Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-york-bill-would-limit-state-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:64e483f5-8707-5c7b-092a-aaad338557db Fri, 15 Jan 2021 12:05:21 +0000 <p>The legislation would prohibit New York state and local law enforcement agencies from receiving or purchasing the following property from a military equipment surplus program operated by the federal government.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-york-bill-would-limit-state-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/">New York Bill Would Limit State Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>ALBANY</strong>, N.Y. (Jan. 15, 2021) &#8211; A bill introduced in the New York Senate would ban state and local law enforcement agencies from acquiring certain military equipment from federal programs.<span id="more-36083"></span></p> <p>Sen. Alessandra Biaggi (D-Bronx) and four fellow Democrats introduced Senate Bill 1069 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/S01069/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">S1069</a>) on Jan. 6. The legislation would prohibit New York state and local law enforcement agencies from receiving or purchasing the following property from a military equipment surplus program operated by the federal government.</p> <ul> <li>(i) drones that are armored, weaponized, or both</li> <li>(ii) aircraft that are combat configured or combat coded</li> <li>(iii) grenades or similar explosives and grenade launchers</li> <li>(iv) silencers</li> <li>(v) militarized armored vehicles</li> <li>(vi) camouflage uniforms</li> <li>(vii) bayonets</li> <li>(viii) riot gear</li> <li>(ix) firearms or ammunition</li> <li>(x) explosives or pyrotechnics</li> <li>(xi) chemical incapacitants</li> </ul> <p>The proposed law would also require law enforcement agencies to publish a notice on their publicly accessible website within 14 days of requesting allowable military equipment from a federal program.</p> <p>The legislation applies both to the well-known 1033 program, along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government.</p> <p>While passage of S1069 wouldn’t end the militarization, it would keep some dangerous weapons out of the hands of police officers set the stage for further limits in the future.</p> <p>Police departments often obtain military and surveillance equipment from the federal government in complete secrecy. Requiring public disclosure of all requests for military gear would bring the process into the open and provide an opportunity for concerned residents to stop the acquisition through their local representatives.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL SURPLUS AND GRANT MONEY</strong></p> <p>Through the federal 1033 Program, local police departments procure military-grade weapons. Police can also get military equipment through the Department of Homeland Security via the (DHS) “Homeland Security Grant Program.” The DHS <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/04/12/dhs-announces-funding-opportunity-fiscal-year-2019-preparedness-grants#:~:text=Homeland%20Security%20Grant%20Program%20(HSGP,of%20terrorism%20and%20other%20threats." data-et-has-event-already="true">doles out over $1 billion in counterterrorism funds</a> to state and local police each year. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon-funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”</p> <p>In August 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/28/executive-order-takes-window-dressing-off-police-militarization-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gave a push to local police militarization</a>. Trump’s action rescinded an <a href="https://www.bja.gov/publications/LEEWG_Report_Final.pdf">Obama-era policy </a>meant to provide greater transparency and oversight around the Department of Defense 1033 program and other federal resources that provide military weapons to local police.</p> <p>Passage of S1069 would limit New York’s participation in federal police militarization programs and create a framework of transparency. It would also create a foundation for the public to stop their local police from obtaining this type of gear.</p> <p><strong>COMMAND AND CONTROL</strong></p> <p>Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the founders. They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’</p> <p>In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”</p> <p>By making it more difficult for local police to get this military-grade gear and surveillance technology, and ensuring they can’t do it in secret, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships. Passage of S1069 would take a first step toward limiting police militarization in New York.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>S1069 was referred to <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/committees/finance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senate Finance Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-york-bill-would-limit-state-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/">New York Bill Would Limit State Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Police State Bills 1033 Program New York Police Militarization Police-State S1069 Mike Maharrey Virginia Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/virginia-bill-would-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:53b271d4-c489-cbf3-20e3-1dbaf5bc0958 Fri, 15 Jan 2021 11:41:40 +0000 <p>The legislation would legalize marijuana for adult use. Under the proposed law, adults 21 and older could purchase and possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to four plants. The legislation would also create a regulatory scheme for the commercial cultivation and retail sale of cannabis. The state’s alcohol regulatory body would have rulemaking authority and would be responsible for issuing licenses.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/virginia-bill-would-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Virginia Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>RICHMOND</strong>, Va. (Jan. 15, 2021) &#8211; A bill filed in the Virginia Senate with the support of Gov. Ralph Northam would legalize marijuana in the state despite federal prohibition.<span id="more-36084"></span></p> <p>Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) and Sen. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) introduced Senate Bill 1406 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/SB1406" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB1406</a>) on Jan. 13. The legislation would legalize marijuana for adult use. Under the proposed law, adults 21 and older could purchase and possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to four plants. The legislation would also create a regulatory scheme for the commercial cultivation and retail sale of cannabis. The state’s alcohol regulatory body would have rulemaking authority and would be responsible for issuing licenses.</p> <p>S1406 also includes expungement provisions. People with prior marijuana convictions would have their records automatically expunged. Individuals currently serving sentences for cannabis-related offenses would have a process to petition for a resentencing hearing.</p> <p><a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/virginia-governor-unveils-bill-to-legalize-marijuana-as-lawmakers-schedule-first-hearing/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">According to Marijuana Moment</a>, Majority Leader Charniele Herring (D-Alexandria) and Del. Don Scott (D-Portsmouth) will sponsor a companion bill in the House.</p> <p>Gov. Northam participated in the unveiling of the bill and has expressed support for marijuana legalization.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Virginia <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/virginia-becomes-34th-state-with-legal-medical-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">established a viable medical marijuana program</a> last year and also <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/now-in-effect-virginia-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decriminalized marijuana possession</a> despite ongoing federal prohibition.</p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>The legalization of marijuana for personal use in Virginia would take the next step and removes another layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state even though federal prohibition would remain in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Virginia is one of a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit i</a>n 2019. During the November election, <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/04/thirty-six-and-counting-more-states-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Arizona, Montana, South Dakota and New Jersey legalized marijuana</a> for recreational use.</p> <p>With 36 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, and 15 legalizing for adult recreational use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats.</p> <p>The push to legalize marijuana for personal use in Virginia demonstrates another important strategic reality. Once a state legalizes marijuana – even if only in a very limited way for medical purposes – it tends to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand grows. That creates pressure to further relax state law. These new laws represent a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>The legislation was referred to the Committee on Rehabilitation and Social Services where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/virginia-bill-would-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Virginia Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis Marijuana SB1406 Virginia Mike Maharrey Today in History: Treaty of Paris Ratified, Formally Ending War for Independence https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/14/today-in-history-treaty-of-paris-ratified-formally-ending-war-for-independence/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:012c7224-b308-7d5c-c9df-1b76dc113e74 Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:01:09 +0000 <p>Confirming that the sovereignty of the states pre-dated the general government, Great Britain recognized that the details of the Treaty of Paris were binding with states individually rather than with a national polity</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/14/today-in-history-treaty-of-paris-ratified-formally-ending-war-for-independence/">Today in History: Treaty of Paris Ratified, Formally Ending War for Independence</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>Today in history, on January 14, 1784, the United States ratified the Treaty of Paris with Britain, bringing a formal end to the American War of Independence.</p> <p>Although few actual scuffles with the British had occurred since the 1781 Battle of Yorktown, the war officially dragged on for two additional years. By this time, exorbitant debts, paper money experiments, insolvency, bloodshed, and financial woes compounded the maladies facing the American states.</p> <p>The states were ready to end remaining hostilities by 1782, and in that September negotiations with Britain began. The United States sent John Adams of Massachusetts, John Jay of New York, and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania to formulate and sign the treaty under the authority of Congress, while Britain was represented by David Hartley and Richard Oswald.</p> <p>While French diplomat Vergennes was on cordial terms with Benjamin Franklin, the famed American diplomat in London, he remained at odds with American commissioners John Jay and John Adams – both of whom distrusted him. The negotiations were originally intended to be a three-party arrangement between the United States, Britain, and France. After a series of deliberations between only the American and British diplomats, however, a series of stipulations were agreed to without the consent of France.</p> <p>First, the independence of the American states was unambiguously recognized. Rather than the acknowledgement of a singular American union, the Treaty of Paris made clear that each state was to be considered a sovereign country with independent political authority.</p> <p>Second, all wartime hostilities were to cease and British army and naval forces, along with remaining British forts, were to be evacuated with “all convenient speed.” Third, all land north of the Ohio River and south of Canada was to be ceded to the United States. Fourth, rights to fisheries off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia were guaranteed to all Americans.</p> <p>Fifth, the rights and property of Tories in the United States were to be recognized, and the states were ordered to repay the Tories for estates that had been confiscated during the course of the war. Future confiscation of Tory property was expressly prohibited, and all prisoners of war were to be released. Sixth, debts accrued between citizens of both Britain and any American state were to remain undisturbed and in affect. Seventh, navigation of the Mississippi River would be guaranteed to each American state and to Britain. However, since Spain controlled access to the river, this clause was virtually meaningless in practice.</p> <p>At the urging of Jay, this maneuver effectively pushed Vergennes out of deliberations, and the French diplomat consequently felt deeply betrayed by the Americans. Believing the terms toward the United States to be too generous, he commented that “the English buy peace rather than make it.”</p> <p>Respecting the primacy of the states, Article II of the Articles of Confederation emphasized that each of the state retained its sovereignty, freedom, and their independence. By securing the successful endorsement of nine states, the states entered into a pact with Britain to end hostilities. The treaty was considered “perpetual” – not everlasting but lacking a specific sunset date.</p> <p>Confirming that the sovereignty of the states pre-dated the general government, Great Britain recognized that the details of the arrangement were binding with states individually rather than with a national polity:</p> <p>“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/14/today-in-history-treaty-of-paris-ratified-formally-ending-war-for-independence/">Today in History: Treaty of Paris Ratified, Formally Ending War for Independence</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> American Revolution History Today in History Treaty of Paris War of Independence Dave Benner U.S. Post Office Now Part of Growing Federal Biometric Surveillance Network https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/u-s-post-office-now-part-of-growing-federal-biometric-surveillance-network/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d601625e-7dff-8703-2ea5-c1832cbc6d82 Thu, 14 Jan 2021 18:50:31 +0000 <p>What initially started out as an employee criminal background screener program has morphed into a biometric criminal background check program for the public.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/u-s-post-office-now-part-of-growing-federal-biometric-surveillance-network/">U.S. Post Office Now Part of Growing Federal Biometric Surveillance Network</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p>Are American&#8217;s ready for a national United States Postal Service (USPS) biometric criminal background check program?<span id="more-36080"></span></p> <p>What initially started out as an employee criminal background screener program has morphed into a biometric criminal background check program for the public.</p> <p>In 2019, the USPS innocuously began installing fingerprint scanners in post offices so they could scan potential employees. The USPS used fingerprint scanners and the National Agency Check with Inquiries (NACI) to conduct in-depth background checks.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;NACI investigations are conducted for all newly hired employees as part of the post-hiring process. Based on the NACI results, the Postal Service makes a final suitability determination and the employee is either retained or separated. During the hiring process, controls are implemented to help ensure that appropriate due diligence (reviews, approval certifications, justifications, etc.) is applied.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>But an <a href="https://federalnewsnetwork.com/federal-newscast/2020/10/you-may-soon-be-able-to-process-your-fingerprints-at-your-local-post-office/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a> from the<i> Federal News Network</i> dated October 2020 revealed all that was about to change.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The Postal Service is working with the FBI to provide fingerprinting services at more than 100 post offices across the country. Before this partnership, the FBI had up to a 14-week turnaround time to process fingerprints for its Identity History Summary Check. But local post offices have processed these fingerprints in less than a day. People go through the fingerprinting program if they apply for a visa, adopt a child, or apply for jobs working with children. USPS officials said the agency is also looking to expand its fingerprint services to other federal agencies.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>According to the Feds, the USPS has been providing &#8220;Identity History Summary Checks&#8221; for the public using their fingerprints in 100 post offices.</p> <p>A hundred post offices offering biometric background checks to the public is nothing to be concerned about, right?</p> <p>Fast-forward four months, and the 100 post offices conducting biometric background checks on Americans has changed dramatically.</p> <p>According to a January 2021 <i>Federal News Network </i><a href="https://federalnewsnetwork.com/big-data/2021/01/usps-biometrics-program-leans-on-its-biggest-asset-a-post-office-in-every-neighborhood/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a>, the USPS biometric criminal background checks of the public has expanded 3900 percent or 4,000 post offices!</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The Postal Service is planning to expand its fingerprinting services to 4,000 facilities before the end of 2021 — a 40-fold increase from current levels – in an effort to make the most of its vast network of post offices across the country.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>A <i>PR Newswire </i><a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/idemia-national-security-solutions-nss-provides-united-states-postal-service-with-new-in-person-proofing-capabilities-301206433.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news release</a> revealed that the USPS and facial recognition company IDEMIA are working together to conduct biometric criminal background checks on people nationwide.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;This award will enable the Postal Service to further leverage its nationwide retail network and information infrastructure to better serve federal agencies and the American public through broader access to biometric capture and in-person proofing services.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>It appears that the Feds and IDEMIA have finally found a way to turn the USPS into a profitable business. Albeit by profiting off of background checks on the public; but it&#8217;s something.</p> <p>IDEMIA&#8217;s CEO Andrew Boyd could not be any happier, &#8220;We are delighted to partner with USPS to help bring their vision forward, and to leverage USPS&#8217;s broad infrastructure to offer the American people greater access to identity verification and assurance solutions.&#8221;</p> <p>The Feds could use post offices to conduct criminal background checks on 99% of the population.</p> <p>The January 2021 Federal News Network article hints that all 31,000 post offices will soon be conducting biometric criminal background checks.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Shane Powers, the vice president of operations at NSS, said the success of the program, and its potential for growth, stem from the agency’s vast delivery network. USPS operates 31,000 post offices, and 99% of the U.S. population lives within 10 miles of their nearest post office.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>The Feds could use America&#8217;s trust of the USPS to create a national biometric criminal background check program</p> <blockquote><p>“They’re very proud that they’re one of the most trusted government agencies time and time again, and a lot of it comes back down to their employees. This partnership will ensure that USPS employees are properly vetted through the FBI channels to make sure that they don’t have that rap sheet that has negative stuff in it,” Powers said.</p></blockquote> <p>Still don&#8217;t think that the Feds could use the USPS to create a national biometric criminal background check program?</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;IDEMIA will also support USPS in offering digital fingerprint services, enabling faster turnaround from the FBI in providing members of the public with their criminal history record,&#8221; Powers said.</p></blockquote> <p>And there is more,</p> <blockquote><p>“They want to innovate faster, and with that comes this value that they’ll deliver. Our platform will be able to scale, it has the flexibility to deploy nationwide and very quickly, so we can move at the speed that USPS wants to innovate,” he said.</p></blockquote> <p>In the not-too-distant future, the government could require citizens to visit their nearest FBI-run post office and submit to biometric criminal background checks complete with facial recognition.</p> <p>Turning the USPS into police department sub-stations appears to be on the fast track, something we should all be concerned about.</p> <p>This post was <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-usps-creating-national-biometric.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">originally published at MassPrivateI</a>.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/u-s-post-office-now-part-of-growing-federal-biometric-surveillance-network/">U.S. Post Office Now Part of Growing Federal Biometric Surveillance Network</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Facial Recognition Surveillance Biometric Data facial recognition Fourth Amendment Privacy surveillance jprivate Constitutional Carry Legislation Filed in Florida https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/constitutional-carry-legislation-filed-in-florida/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:9c547c27-8925-e795-ff4c-82efed458de2 Thu, 14 Jan 2021 18:34:44 +0000 <p>A “Constitutional Carry” bill filed for the 2021 legislative session would make it legal for Florida residents to carry a firearm without a license, fostering an environment hostile to federal gun control.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/constitutional-carry-legislation-filed-in-florida/">Constitutional Carry Legislation Filed in Florida</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>TALLAHASSEE</strong>, Fla. (Jan. 14, 2021) &#8211; A “Constitutional Carry” bill filed for the 2021 legislative session would make it legal for Florida residents to carry a firearm without a license, fostering an environment hostile to federal gun control.<span id="more-36047"></span></p> <p>Rep. Anthony Sabatini (R-Howey-in-the-Hills) prefiled House Bill 123 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/FL/bill/H0123/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB123</a>) on Dec. 28. Under the proposed law, anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun could carry it concealed without a state-issued license. Currently, Florida allows anyone over 21 years old who can demonstrate “competency with a firearm” to <a href="https://www.fdacs.gov/Consumer-Resources/Concealed-Weapon-License" target="_blank" rel="noopener">obtain a concealed carry permit</a>. The license also applies to other types of weapons.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, all other states’ concealed licenses would be recognized. A Florida resident could still get a permit in order to carry concealed in states that require them.</p> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL GUN CONTROL</strong></p> <p>While permitless carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway.</p> <p>The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”</p> <p>Less restrictive state gun laws will likely have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce any future federal gun control, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts.</p> <p>State actions such as passing HB123 would lower barriers for those wanting to the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB123 will be referred to several committees when the legislative session starts on March 2. It will have to receive a majority vote in each committee in order to advance to the House floor.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/constitutional-carry-legislation-filed-in-florida/">Constitutional Carry Legislation Filed in Florida</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Concealed Carry Constitutional Carry firearms Florida HB123 TJ Martinell Having a Muscle Car Turned Me Into a Jerk https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/having-a-muscle-car-turned-me-into-a-jerk/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:b3539dfb-c8cf-70a5-3eee-29bfa5dfaef9 Thu, 14 Jan 2021 18:30:26 +0000 <p>Having a muscle car for a weekend turned me into a jerk. There's an important lesson for politics here.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/having-a-muscle-car-turned-me-into-a-jerk/">Having a Muscle Car Turned Me Into a Jerk</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p>Having a muscle car for a weekend turned me into a jerk. There&#8217;s an important lesson for politics here.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">When you give politicians a whole bunch of power, they&#39;re going to want to use it. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/liberty?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#liberty</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/decentralize?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#decentralize</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://t.co/0Z9Bakf6LG">pic.twitter.com/0Z9Bakf6LG</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1349391588498100227?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 13, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/24/the-first-question-we-should-always-ask/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The First Question We Should Always Ask</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/29/you-should-barely-know-the-federal-government-exists/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">You Should Barely Know the Federal Government Exists</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/having-a-muscle-car-turned-me-into-a-jerk/">Having a Muscle Car Turned Me Into a Jerk</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Audio/Video Government Maharrey Minute government power Power Mike Maharrey New York Bill Would Create State Process to End Police Qualified Immunity https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-york-bill-would-create-state-process-to-end-police-qualified-immunity-2/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ab71d4fe-4512-a526-ee5b-db5a45e2ea92 Thu, 14 Jan 2021 18:16:05 +0000 <p>A bill introduced in the New York Senate would create a process to sue police officers in state court for using excessive force or taking other actions that violate individual rights without the possibility of “qualified immunity” as a defense.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-york-bill-would-create-state-process-to-end-police-qualified-immunity-2/">New York Bill Would Create State Process to End Police Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. <p><strong>ALBANY</strong>, N.Y. (Jan. 14, 2021) &#8211; A bill introduced in the New York Senate would create a process to sue police officers in state court for using excessive force or taking other actions that violate individual rights without the possibility of “qualified immunity” as a defense.<span id="more-36073"></span></p> <p>Sen. Zellnor Myrie (D-Brooklyn) introduced Senate Bill 1050 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/S01050/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">S1050</a>) on Jan. 6. The legislation would create a cause of action in state courts to sue police officers who &#8220;under the color of law, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the federal or state constitution or laws, or whose exercise or enjoyment of those rights, privileges or immunities has been interfered with or attempted to be interfered with, by threats, intimidation or coercion by a person acting under the color of law.&#8221;</p> <p>S1050 specifies that qualified immunity is not a defense in cases brought under this statute.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;It shall not be a defense or immunity to any action brought under this article that the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that their conduct was lawful at the time when it was committed. Nor shall it be a defense or immunity that the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the federal or state constitution or laws were not clearly established at the time of their deprivation or interference or attempted interference by the defendant, or that the state of the law was otherwise such that the defendant could not reasonably have been expected to know whether their conduct was lawful.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p><strong>The Process </strong></p> <p>Typically, people sue police for using excessive force or other types of misconduct through the federal court system under the U.S. Bill of Rights. But <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/13/how-federal-courts-gave-us-qualified-immunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">federal courts created a qualified immunity defense out of thin air</a>, making it nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers responsible for actions taken in the line of duty. In order to move ahead with a suit, the plaintiff must establish that it was “clearly established” that the officer’s action was unconstitutional. The “clearly established” test erects an almost insurmountable hurdle to those trying to prove excessive force or a violation of their rights.</p> <p>Passage of S1050 would create an alternative path in state court with no qualified immunity hurdle to clear.</p> <p>The language in the bill is similar to a law recently <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/signed-as-law-colorado-creates-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity-for-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed in Colorado</a>.</p> <p><strong>In Practice</strong></p> <p>It remains unclear how the state legal process would play out in practice.</p> <p>The first question is whether people will actually utilize the state courts instead of the federal process. Under the original constitutional system, it would have never been a federal issue to begin with. Regulation of police powers was clearly delegated to the states, not the federal government. But with the advent of the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>, people reflexively run to federal courts. But by removing the qualified immunity hurdle, it should incentivize people to take advantage of the state system.</p> <p>The second question is if police officers will be able to transfer cases to federal jurisdiction in order to take advantage of qualified immunity.</p> <p>S1050 opens that door. The proposed law would allow people to sue in state court for violations of the U.S. Constitution or laws of the United States. All matters regarding the U.S. Constitution or federal law will be remanded to federal courts. To avoid this, plaintiffs would have to sue based solely on the New York State Constitution and its bill of rights. The only way to avoid federal jurisdiction and ensure federal qualified immunity doesn’t come into play would be to limit the suit to <strong>state</strong> constitutional issues.</p> <p>Even if the suit is focused on state law and the New York constitution, state and local law enforcement officers working <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/16/joint-law-enforcement-task-forces-are-creating-a-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">on joint state/federal task forces</a> would almost certainly be able to move the case to federal court. They are effectively treated as federal agents.</p> <p>One attorney told the Tenth Amendment Center that it might be possible for officers to have their case removed to federal court to consider U.S. constitutional ramifications. But he said even then, he thinks federal courts would have to respect the state law prohibiting qualified immunity as a defense. The federal court would likely have to apply the state law as the state intended, even though the federal court might well be able to decide whether or not a U.S. constitutional violation had taken place.</p> <p>Other lawyers we talked to said it wasn’t clear to them that the federal courts would have to honor the state statute. It is possible that the federal court could simply decide its jurisdiction supersedes state law and hear the case under the federal process, including the application of qualified immunity. Only time will tell how the process will play out in practice. Regardless, the state process will make it more difficult for police to simply side-step civil suits by declaring sovereign immunity upfront.</p> <p><strong>Moving Forward </strong></p> <p>The Supreme Court shows no interest in rolling back its qualified immunity doctrine. In fact, the High Court recently rejected several cases that would have allowed it to revisit the issue. For instance, the SCOTUS let stand an <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715566.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eleventh Circuit decision</a> granting immunity to a police officer who shot a ten-year-old child in the back of the knee, while repeatedly attempting to shoot a pet dog that wasn’t threatening anyone.</p> <p>Congress could prohibit qualified immunity. <a href="https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-end-qualified-immunity" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A bill</a> sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.) and  Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) during the last Congress would have done just that, but it was never taken up. Congress does not have a good track recorded on reining in government power.</p> <p>The best path forward is to bypass the federal system as Colorado has already done.</p> <p>Other states should follow their lead and create state processes to hold their police officers accountable. With the evolution of qualified immunity, the federal process is an abject failure. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote in the 1986 case <em>Malley v. Briggs</em>, qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-immunity-scotus-snapshot/six-takeaways-from-reuters-investigation-of-police-violence-and-qualified-immunity-idUSKBN22K1AM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Reuters</em> called it</a> “a highly effective shield in thousands of lawsuits seeking to hold cops accountable for using excessive force.”</p> <p>Attorney and activist Dave Roland called on Missouri to adopt a similar process in <a href="https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/dave-roland-no-more-excuses-hold-law-enforcement-officials-accountable/article_9d627981-1950-5858-abd9-d14cf587def6.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an op-ed published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>A consensus has developed — crossing all party and ideological lines — for the proposition that qualified immunity is an evil that should be undone. At the federal level either the Supreme Court or Congress could undo it, but thus far neither has seen fit to act. Justice in Missouri, however, does not need to wait on Washington — the Legislature can and should adopt a Missouri statute that allows citizens to sue government officials who have violated citizens’ constitutional rights.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>S1050 was referred to the <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/senators-committees" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senate Codes Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/new-york-bill-would-create-state-process-to-end-police-qualified-immunity-2/">New York Bill Would Create State Process to End Police Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center Blog</a>. Qualified Immunity State Bills Courts Incorporation Doctrine New York Police-State S1050 Mike Maharrey