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/ War Is the Greatest Enemy of Liberty https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/war-is-the-greatest-enemy-of-liberty/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:fb5c41ba-f03f-e0bc-09ab-b3de532e8c6e Fri, 27 Jan 2023 23:00:06 +0000 <p>James Madison warned of all the enemies of liberty, war was “the most to be dreaded.”</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/war-is-the-greatest-enemy-of-liberty/">War Is the Greatest Enemy of Liberty</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>James Madison warned of all the enemies of liberty, war was “the most to be dreaded.”</p> <p>Why?</p> <p>Because it “comprises and develops the germ of every other” enemy of liberty.</p> <blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnIaBr2j3uZ/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"> <div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnIaBr2j3uZ/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> </p> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div> </div> <p></a></p> <p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnIaBr2j3uZ/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Tenth Amendment Center (@tenthamendmentcenter)</a></p> </div> </blockquote> <p> <script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script></p> <p><strong>For More Information</strong></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/11/liberty-is-the-price-of-endless-war/">Liberty is the Price of Endless War</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/12/12/want-war-you-pay-for-it/">Want War? You Pay for It!</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/28/james-madison-on-war-as-a-great-threat-to-liberty/">James Madison on War as a Great Threat to Liberty</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/2023/01/war-is-the-greatest-enemy-of-liberty/">War Is the Greatest Enemy of Liberty</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute War James Madison Liberty war War Powers Mike Maharrey Maryland House Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Create State Process to End Qualified Immunity https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/maryland-house-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-create-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:93fff591-89f8-9bf3-a5c8-7a2da80a204f Fri, 27 Jan 2023 22:49:05 +0000 <p>The legislation would create a cause of action in state court for individuals to sue police officers who, under the color of law, deprive them of an individual right secured by the Maryland Declaration of Rights or the Maryland constitution.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/maryland-house-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-create-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity/">Maryland House Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Create State Process to End Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><b>ANNAPOLIS</b>, Md. (Jan. 27, 2023) – Last week, a Maryland House committee held a hearing on a bill that would create a process to sue police officers in state court for the deprivation of individual rights without the possibility of “qualified immunity” as a defense.<span id="more-40881"></span></p> <p>Del. Gabriel Acevero (D) introduced House Bill 115 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB115/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB115</a>) on Jan. 11. The legislation would create a cause of action in state court for individuals to sue police officers who, under the color of law, deprive them of an individual right secured by the Maryland Declaration of Rights or the Maryland constitution.</p> <p>The proposed law includes language that would preclude qualified immunity as a defense.</p> <p>On Jan. 19, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on HB115. This is an important first step in the legislative process.</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>In effect, the passage of HB115 would create an alternative path to address violations of rights in state court with no qualified immunity hurdle to clear. A similar law was <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><b>IN PRACTICE</b></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 removing the qualified immunity hurdle 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 Maryland 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 record 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>HB115 needs to be brought up for a vote in the House Judiciary Committee and pass by a majority 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/2023/01/maryland-house-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-create-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity/">Maryland House Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Create State Process to End Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Qualified Immunity State Bills HB115 Incorporation Doctrine Maryland Police Mike Maharrey Missouri Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Bill That Would Take Steps Toward Treating Gold and Silver as Money https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/missouri-senate-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-that-would-take-steps-toward-treating-gold-and-silver-as-money/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:722c0a4f-0ffb-f87e-7af1-55818d532c41 Fri, 27 Jan 2023 22:47:19 +0000 <p>The legislation would take two steps to encourage the use of gold and silver as money in Missouri, including making it legal tender, and eliminating the state capital gains tax on gold and silver.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/missouri-senate-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-that-would-take-steps-toward-treating-gold-and-silver-as-money/">Missouri Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Bill That Would Take Steps Toward Treating Gold and Silver as Money</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (Jan. 27, 2023) &#8211; On Wednesday, a Missouri Senate committee held a hearing on a bill that would take important steps toward treating gold and silver as money instead of commodities and would set the stage for the people to undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.<span id="more-40864"></span></p> <p>Sen. William Eigel (R) filed Senate Bill 100 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/SB100/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB100</a>) on Dec. 1. The legislation would take two steps to encourage the use of gold and silver as money in Missouri, including making it legal tender, and eliminating the state capital gains tax on gold and silver.</p> <p>On Wednesday, the Senate Veterans, Military Affairs and Pensions Committee held a hearing on SB100. The committee made some amendments to the bill, including stripping out language that would have created a state bullion depository. Sources say there was some language in that section that conflicted with the state constitution. The committee also recommended language to clarify how the value of bullion is determined.</p> <p><strong>Legal Tender and Tax Reforms</strong></p> <p>Under the proposed law, gold and silver would be accepted as legal tender and would be receivable in payment of all public and private debts contracted for in the state of Missouri. Practically speaking, this would allow Missourians to use gold or silver coins as money rather than just as mere investment vehicles. In effect, it would put gold and silver on the same footing as Federal Reserve notes.</p> <p>Missouri could become the fourth state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender. Utah led the way, reestablishing constitutional money in 2011. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/03/new-wyoming-legal-tender-law-treats-gold-and-silver-as-money-foundation-to-undermine-the-federal-reserve/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wyoming</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/06/oklahoma-reaffirms-gold-and-silver-as-legal-tender-under-new-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oklahoma</a> have since joined.</p> <p>The effect has been most dramatic in Utah where <a href="https://upma.org/">United Precious Metals Association</a> (UMPA) was established after the passage of the Utah Specie Legal Tender Act and the elimination of all taxes on gold and silver. UPMA offers accounts denominated in U.S.-minted gold and silver dollars. The company was also instrumental in the development of the “<a href="https://www.goldback.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Utah Goldback</a>,” described as “the first local, voluntary currency to be made of a spendable, beautiful, physical gold.”</p> <p>SB100 would also exempt the sale of gold and silver bullion from the state’s capital gains tax. Missouri is already one of 42 states that do not levy sales tax on gold and silver bullion. Exempting the sale of bullion from capital gains taxes takes another step toward treating gold and silver as money instead of commodities. Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs. As <a href="https://www.soundmoneydefense.org/">Sound Money Defense League</a> policy director Jp Cortez testified during a committee hearing on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/wyoming-legal-tender-act-treats-gold-and-silver-as-money-foundation-to-undermine-the-federal-reserve/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a similar bill in Wyoming</a> in 2018, charging taxes on <em>money itself</em> is beyond the pale.</p> <blockquote><p>“In effect, states that collect taxes on purchases of precious metals are inherently saying gold and silver are not money at all.”</p></blockquote> <p>Imagine if you asked a grocery clerk to break a $5 bill and he charged you a 35-cent tax. Silly, right? After all, you were only exchanging one form of money for another. But that’s essentially what a sales tax on gold and silver bullion does. By eliminating this tax on the exchange of gold and silver, Virginia would treat specie as money instead of a commodity. This represents a small step toward reestablishing gold and silver as legal tender and breaking down the Fed’s monopoly on money.</p> <p>“We ought not to tax money – and that’s a good idea. It makes no sense to tax money,” former U.S. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/03/ron-paul-testimony-in-support-of-arizona-sound-money-bill-hb2014/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rep. Ron Paul said during testimony in support an Arizona bill</a> that repealed capital gains taxes on gold and silver in that state. “Paper is not money, it’s fraud,” he continued.</p> <p>The proposed law includes a provision that would bar any state agency, department, or political subdivision from seizing gold or silver bullion.</p> <p><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></p> <p>The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Currently, all debts and taxes in South Carolina are either paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) which were authorized as legal tender by Congress or with coins issued by the U.S. Treasury — very few of which have gold or silver in them.</p> <p>The Federal Reserve destroys this constitutional monetary system by creating a monopoly based on its fiat currency. Without the backing of gold or silver, the central bank can easily create money out of thin air. This not only devalues your purchasing power over time; it also allows the federal government to borrow and spend far beyond what would be possible in a sound money system. Without the Fed, the U.S. government wouldn’t be able to maintain all of its unconstitutional wars and programs. <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/17/the-federal-reserve-the-engine-that-powers-the-most-powerful-government-in-history/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Federal Reserve is the engine that drives the most powerful government in the history of the world</a>.</p> <p>Repealing taxes on gold and silver also takes the first step in the process of abolishing the Federal Reserve system by attacking it from the bottom up – pulling the rug out from under it by working to make its functions irrelevant at the state and local levels, and setting the stage to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.</p> <p>In <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/04/04/ending-the-federal-reserve-from-the-bottom-up/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a paper</a> presented at the Mises Institute, Constitutional tender expert Professor William Greene said when people in multiple states actually start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve Notes, it would effectively nullify the Federal Reserve and end the federal government’s monopoly on money.</p> <blockquote><p>“Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state – as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions.”</p></blockquote> <p>Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people. Nullifying the Fed on a state-by-state level is what will get us there.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB100 will be brought up for a vote during an executive session of the Senate Veterans, Military Affairs and Pensions Committee. It will need to pass by a majority vote to move forward in the legislative process. Sources say the executive session could come as early as next week.</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/2023/01/missouri-senate-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-that-would-take-steps-toward-treating-gold-and-silver-as-money/">Missouri Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Bill That Would Take Steps Toward Treating Gold and Silver as Money</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Federal Reserve State Bills Gold Legal Tender Missouri SB100 Silver Sound Money Mike Maharrey Spies Gone Wild https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/spies-gone-wild/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:2e0b0aee-6129-d53e-194e-0d3f0c0c3ebf Fri, 27 Jan 2023 17:55:22 +0000 <p>Nullification Movement News, Episode 4. This week's stories include:<br /> -FBI illegally collaborates with CIA and NSA<br /> -Facial Recognition, Stingrays - OK, MS, NY, MN, SC - and a fail in ND<br /> -No-Knocking in NC and elsewhere</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/spies-gone-wild/">Spies Gone Wild</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Nullification Movement News, Episode 4. This week&#8217;s stories include:<br /> -FBI illegally collaborates with CIA and NSA<br /> -Facial Recognition, Stingrays &#8211; OK, MS, NY, MN, SC &#8211; and a fail in ND<br /> -No-Knocking in NC and elsewhere</p> <p>Path to Liberty: Jan 27, 2023<span id="more-40878"></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/9tAK-dnmQ98" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" 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.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/10/fbi-reveals-it-uses-cia-and-nsa-spy-americans/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">FBI reveals it uses CIA and NSA to spy on Americans</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.creators.com/read/judge-napolitano/01/23/the-fbi-and-personal-liberty" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Napolitano: The FBI and Personal Liberty</a></p> <p><a href="https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/no-knocking-in-north-carolina" rel="noopener" target="_blank">No-knocking in North Carolina</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/nullify-federal-gun-control/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">NMN Episode 2</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/nmn-012723:9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://rumble.com/v27d6v8-spies-gone-wild-nmn-ep-4.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Rumble</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1619027598482309120" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://sovren.media/video/spies-gone-wild-nmn-ep-4-2418.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Sovren</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1465762024385417229" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/spies-gone-wild-nmn-ep-4-63d40c43645cfbfba4bf873c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/e8f81573-2e6d-4fcb-8f77-1ea9e7396a2e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/iaJju7AJVP/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/by0mPYG8NmvG/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tenthamendmentcenter_spies-gone-wild-nmn-ep-4-activity-7024793006100647936-1_3l" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</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></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/2023/01/spies-gone-wild/">Spies Gone Wild</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video No-Knock Warrants Path to Liberty State Bills Surveillance 4th Amendment CIA James Otis No Knock Warrants NSA Police Privacy surveillance Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 7:21 Nullification Movement News, Episode 4. This week's stories include: -FBI illegally collaborates with CIA and NSA -Facial Recognition, Stingrays - OK, MS, NY, MN, SC - and a fail in ND -No-Knocking in NC and elsewhere Nullification Movement News, Episode 4. This week's stories include:<br /> -FBI illegally collaborates with CIA and NSA<br /> -Facial Recognition, Stingrays - OK, MS, NY, MN, SC - and a fail in ND<br /> -No-Knocking in NC and elsewhere Texas Bills Would Create a Process to Review and Reject Unconstitutional Federal Acts https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/texas-bills-would-create-a-process-to-review-and-reject-unconstitutional-federal-acts/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:12431057-b2d6-cedd-7504-7b8200102fce Fri, 27 Jan 2023 15:03:59 +0000 <p>Four bills filed in the Texas House and Senate would create a state process to review federal laws and end state cooperation with enforcement of those determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. This process could set the stage to effectively block the enforcement of some federal laws and acts in the Lone Star State.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/texas-bills-would-create-a-process-to-review-and-reject-unconstitutional-federal-acts/">Texas Bills Would Create a Process to Review and Reject Unconstitutional Federal Acts</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>AUSTIN</strong>, Texas (Jan 27, 2023) – Four bills filed in the Texas House and Senate would create a state process to review federal laws and end state cooperation with enforcement of those determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. This process could set the stage to effectively block the enforcement of some federal laws and acts in the Lone Star State.<span id="more-40800"></span></p> <p>Rep. Valoree Swanson (R) filed House Bill 262 (<a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&amp;Bill=HB262">HB262</a>) on Nov. 14, 2022, and Sen. Mayes Middleton (R) filed Senate Bill 242 (<a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&amp;Bill=SB242">SB242</a>) on Nov. 17. The legislation would direct the state attorney general to provide monthly written reports to the governor, lieutenant governor, speaker of the house, and each member of the legislature that identify acts by the federal government that violate the rights guaranteed to the citizens of the United States by the United States Constitution or exceed the powers specifically granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.&#8221; The bill would prohibit a state agency or political subdivision from cooperating with a federal government agency in implementing any act determined by the AG to be in violation of the Constitution.<br /> <span id="more-40543"></span></p> <p>Rep. Ivan Bell (R) filed House Bill 384 (<a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&amp;Bill=HB384">HB384</a>) on Nov. 14, 2022. It is the companion bill to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/12/texas-bill-would-create-a-process-to-review-and-reject-unconstitutional-federal-acts-2/">SB313</a> filed by Sen Bob Hall (R) on Dec. 19. The legislation would create the Joint Legislative Committee on Constitutional Enforcement, which would review federal laws, agency rules and regulations, executive orders, federal court decisions, and treaties “that challenge the sovereignty of the state and of the people for the purpose of determining if the federal action is unconstitutional.”</p> <p>The legislation defines specific criteria by which the committee would review federal acts.</p> <blockquote><p>When reviewing a federal action, the committee shall consider the plain reading and reasoning of the text of the United States Constitution and the understood definitions at the time of the framing and construction of the Constitution by our forefathers before making a final declaration of constitutionality.</p></blockquote> <p>Under the proposed law, if the committee determines a federal action violates the Constitution, it would then submit it to the Texas Supreme Court for review. If the Texas Supreme Court determines the federal action violates the Constitution, the full House and Senate would then vote on that determination. Passage of the resolution and the governor’s signature would constitute an official determination of unconstitutionality and would prohibit state enforcement of the act.</p> <blockquote><p>a) A federal action declared to be an unconstitutional federal action under Section 394.004 has no legal effect in this state and may not be recognized by this state or a political subdivision of this state as having legal effect.</p> <p>(b) The state and a political subdivision of the state may not spend public money or resources or incur public debt to implement or enforce a federal action declared to be an unconstitutional federal action.</p> <p>(c) A person authorized to enforce the laws of this state may enforce those laws, including Section 39.03, Penal Code, against a person who attempts to implement or enforce a federal action declared to be an unconstitutional federal action.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></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” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states. This legislation could effectively end enforcement of any federal laws deemed to violate the Constitution.</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 rest 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 – 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>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB262, SB242, and HB384 were officially introduced when the 2023 session of the Texas legislature kicked off on Jan. 10. As of this reporting, the bills have yet to receive committee assignments. Each will need to receive a hearing and pass the 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/2023/01/texas-bills-would-create-a-process-to-review-and-reject-unconstitutional-federal-acts/">Texas Bills Would Create a Process to Review and Reject Unconstitutional Federal Acts</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Federal Review State Bills Anticommandeering HB262 HB384 SB242 SB313 State Sovereignty Texas Alan Mosley Oklahoma Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture in the State but Federal Loophole Would Remain https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/oklahoma-bill-would-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-in-the-state-but-federal-loophole-would-remain/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:33246df7-5d4d-1a45-afd0-35f189e8492c Fri, 27 Jan 2023 13:04:02 +0000 <p>The legislation would simply repeal the entire Oklahoma civil asset forfeiture process.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/oklahoma-bill-would-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-in-the-state-but-federal-loophole-would-remain/">Oklahoma Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture in the State but Federal Loophole Would Remain</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>OKLAHOMA CITY</strong>, Okla. (Jan. 27, 2023) &#8211; A bill filed in the Oklahoma Senate would repeal the state&#8217;s civil asset forfeiture process and replace it with nothing. But the legislation leaves a loophole open that would allow police to continue using asset forfeiture by partnering with the feds.<span id="more-40837"></span></p> <p>Sen. Nathan Dahm (R) filed Senate Bill 1089 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/SB1089/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB1089</a>) for introduction when the Oklahoma legislature convenes on Feb. 6. The legislation would simply repeal the entire Oklahoma civil asset forfeiture process.</p> <p>The <a href="https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/?state=OK" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Institute for Justice grades Oklahoma’s forfeiture process a D-</a>. Under the current law, prosecutors can take a person’s property without even charging them with a crime.</p> <p>While the passage of this legislation would significantly reform the Oklahoma asset forfeiture process, it fails to address a loophole that allows state and local police to get around more strict state civil asset forfeiture laws in a vast majority of situations. This is particularly important in light of a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/30/states-can-thwart-new-doj-asset-forfeiture-policy/">2017 policy directive issued by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> for the Department of Justice (DOJ) that remains in place today. Without opting out of the federal asset forfeiture program, police will have an easy avenue to circumvent these important reforms.</p> <p>Dahm also filed Senate Bill 1088 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/SB1088/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB1088</a>). This legislation would establish robust reporting requirements for asset forfeiture in the state. While the passage of this bill would not reform Oklahoma&#8217;s asset forfeiture laws, it would set a foundation to do so in the future. By increasing transparency, the legislation would allow Oklahomans 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>Another <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/12/oklahoma-bill-would-reform-state-asset-forfeiture-laws-but-federal-loophole-would-remain/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bill filed in the Oklahoma House</a> would reform the state&#8217;s asset forfeiture process to require a conviction before asset forfeiture.</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>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<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. Through this process, state or local police hand the forfeiture case to the feds to prosecute even though there was initially no federal involvement in the investigation and seizure. State and local police can also tap into equitable sharing by working with the feds on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/state-federal-task-forces-and-the-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">joint task forces</a>. About 85 percent of equitable sharing cases arise from these joint task forces, but a significant number also begin with adoption.</p> <p>Through this program, 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>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>SB1089 does not address this loophole. Without amendments, Oklahoma law enforcement would continue to have a forfeiture process even if the state process is eliminated.</p> <p>The Oklahoma Senate should amend the current legislation with the following language to close the loophole and opt the state out of equitable sharing.</p> <blockquote><p>A state or local law enforcement agency shall not transfer or offer for adoption property, seized under State law, to a federal agency for the purpose of forfeiture under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 46, or other federal law.</p> <p>A joint task force of a law enforcement agency and a federal agency shall transfer seized property to the prosecuting authority for forfeiture under this chapter.</p> <p>The joint task force may transfer seized property to the U.S. Department of Justice for forfeiture under federal law if the seized property includes U.S. currency that exceeds $100,000.</p> <p>A law enforcement agency is prohibited from accepting payment or distribution of any kind from the federal government if the federal government requires seized property that includes U.S. currency less than $100,000 be transferred to the federal government for forfeiture under federal law</p></blockquote> <p>Very few cases exceed the $100,000 threshold.</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>SB1088 and SB1089 will be officially introduced and referred to a committee when the Oklahoma legislature convenes on Feb. 6. The bills will need to get a hearing and pass their 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/2023/01/oklahoma-bill-would-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-in-the-state-but-federal-loophole-would-remain/">Oklahoma Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture in the State but Federal Loophole Would Remain</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing Oklahoma Policing for Profit SB1088 SB1089 Mike Maharrey Maryland Bill Would Limit Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/maryland-bill-would-limit-law-enforcement-use-of-facial-recognition-2/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:52f306ef-6ea5-b627-e954-9d42211fb250 Fri, 27 Jan 2023 03:14:47 +0000 <p>The proposed law would limit the use of facial recognition to “crimes of violence,” human trafficking, or a criminal act “involving circumstances presenting a substantial and ongoing threat to public safety or national security.” When used in such an investigation, facial recognition could not be used as the sole basis to establish probable cause.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/maryland-bill-would-limit-law-enforcement-use-of-facial-recognition-2/">Maryland Bill Would Limit Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>ANNAPOLIS</strong>, Md. (Jan. 26, 2023) – A bill introduced in the Maryland House would place limits on government use of facial recognition technology. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in Maryland; it could also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-40859"></span></p> <p>Del. David Moon (D) and Del. Sara Love (D) introduced House Bill 223 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB223/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB223</a>) on Jan. 23. The proposed law would limit the use of facial recognition to “crimes of violence,” human trafficking, or a criminal act “involving circumstances presenting a substantial and ongoing threat to public safety or national security.” When used in such an investigation, facial recognition could not be used as the sole basis to establish probable cause.</p> <p>Results generated by facial recognition could only be introduced as evidence in a criminal proceeding to establish probable cause or a positive identification in connection with a warrant or at a preliminary hearing.</p> <p>HB223 would ban the use of facial recognition on individuals “engaged in activity protected under the United States Constitution, the Maryland Constitution, or the Maryland Declaration of Rights” unless there is reasonable suspicion to believe the individual has committed a crime. It would also prohibit using facial recognition on a sketch or manually produced image, and it would ban the use of facial recognition for live or real-time identification.</p> <p>While passage into law would not end government use of facial recognition in Maryland, it would set the foundation by setting limits on the technology and preventing ongoing surveillance using facial recognition.</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">2019 report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state driver’s 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 the story wasn’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">a massive 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">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">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> <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">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> <p>Despite the outrage generated by these reports, Congress has done nothing to roll back this facial recognition program.</p> <p>There are <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">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">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">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">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">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. The 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>HB223 received a public hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 25. 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/2023/01/maryland-bill-would-limit-law-enforcement-use-of-facial-recognition-2/">Maryland Bill Would Limit Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. State Bills Surveillance facial recognition HB223 Maryland Privacy surveillance TJ Martinell Hawaii Bill Would Legalize Limited Raw Milk Sales; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/hawaii-bill-would-legalize-limited-raw-milk-sales-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ceda3186-6aa5-aad6-797c-87948bc84d6d Fri, 27 Jan 2023 03:13:15 +0000 <p>Under the proposed law, milk producers could legally sell raw milk and raw milk products directly to consumers subject to rules adopted by an oversight board. Sales would be limited to farms or facilities with no more than 10 milk-bearing cows, The law would also implement labeling standards for raw milk.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/hawaii-bill-would-legalize-limited-raw-milk-sales-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/">Hawaii Bill Would Legalize Limited Raw Milk Sales; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>HONOLULU, </strong>Hawaii (Jan. 26, 2023) – A bill filed in the Hawaii House would legalize direct-to-consumer sales of raw milk. The passage of this bill would not only start to open Hawaii’s raw milk market; it would take a step toward nullifying a federal prohibition scheme in practice and effect.<span id="more-40858"></span></p> <p>Rep. Mark Nakashima introduced House Bill 521 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/HI/bill/HB521/2023">HB521</a>) on Jan. 23. Under the proposed law, milk producers could legally sell raw milk and raw milk products directly to consumers subject to rules adopted by an oversight board. Sales would be limited to farms or facilities with no more than 10 milk-bearing cows, The law would also implement labeling standards for raw milk.</p> <p>Under current law, Hawaii maintains a total ban on the sale of raw milk for human consumption. In 2021, the state also imposed a ban on <a href="https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2021/07/19/state-enforcement-years-old-raw-milk-ban-blindsides-pet-food-businesses/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">raw milk as pet food</a>. The Hawaii Department of Health called raw milk sold by pet stores “a public safety issue” because it could be mishandled and consumed by humans.</p> <p>The passage of HB521 would not only take the first step toward opening up the raw milk market in the state; it would also move forward efforts to nullify a federal raw milk prohibition scheme.</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; but 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 a 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, HB521 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/2023/01/hawaii-bill-would-legalize-limited-raw-milk-sales-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/">Hawaii Bill Would Legalize Limited Raw Milk Sales; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. FDA Raw Milk State Bills food freedom Hawaii HB521 unpasteurized milk Alan Mosley Permit not Required: “Constitutional Carry” Bills Filed in South Carolina https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/permit-not-required-constitutional-carry-bills-filed-in-south-carolina/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3fc5c31c-1ab1-420c-4ecd-674e7d6c4c7b Fri, 27 Jan 2023 03:11:42 +0000 <p>COLUMBIA S.C. (Jan 26, 2023) – Two bills filed in the South Carolina House would legalize permitless carry in the state. The enactment of a so-called “constitutional carry” bill would also foster an environment more hostile to federal gun control. Rep. Bobby Cox (R) and 61 Republican cosponsors prefiled House Bill 3594 (H3594) on Dec. [&#8230;]</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/permit-not-required-constitutional-carry-bills-filed-in-south-carolina/">Permit not Required: “Constitutional Carry” Bills Filed in South Carolina</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>COLUMBIA</strong> S.C. (Jan 26, 2023) – Two bills filed in the South Carolina House would legalize permitless carry in the state. The enactment of a so-called “constitutional carry” bill would also foster an environment more hostile to federal gun control.<span id="more-40829"></span></p> <p>Rep. Bobby Cox (R) and 61 Republican cosponsors prefiled House Bill 3594 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/SC/bill/H3594/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">H3594</a>) on Dec. 15. Rep. Thomas Beach (R) filed House Bill 3612 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/SC/bill/H3612/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">H3612</a>) on Jan. 11.</p> <p>The bills differ in language, but essentially allow anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun to carry it without a state-issued license, while providing restrictions on carrying a firearm, concealed or not, in certain public places. South Carolina would continue issuing concealed carry permits for those who want them in order to take advantage of CCDW reciprocity in other states.</p> <p>Currently, South Carolina gun owners<a href="http://www.sled.sc.gov/CWPFaq.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> must first attend training</a> through a certified South Carolina CWP instructor before they can get a permit.</p> <p>The bill seeks to repeal numerous sections of state law relating to the carrying of firearms. At the same time, it imposes restrictions on where a person can carry a firearm, concealed or not. That includes police stations, courthouses, polling locations, daycares, and preschools.</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 these bills 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>Both bills have been referred to the House Committee on Judiciary, where they must receive a hearing and 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/2023/01/permit-not-required-constitutional-carry-bills-filed-in-south-carolina/">Permit not Required: “Constitutional Carry” Bills Filed in South Carolina</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Constitutional Carry firearms H3594 H3612 Permitless Carry South Carolina TJ Martinell Delaware Committees Pass Bills to Legalize Marijuana Despite Ongoing Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/delaware-committees-pass-bills-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-ongoing-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:c5429d14-8833-0bdb-8312-456ab86f608d Fri, 27 Jan 2023 03:06:49 +0000 <p>Together, the two bills would legalize marijuana and create a regulatory and tax structure for the commercial cultivation and sale of cannabis in Delaware.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/delaware-committees-pass-bills-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-ongoing-prohibition/">Delaware Committees Pass Bills to Legalize Marijuana Despite Ongoing Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>DOVER</strong>, Del. (Jan. 26, 2023) &#8211; This week, separate Delaware House committees passed bills that together would legalize marijuana for adult use and create a regulatory structure for cannabis commerce in the state despite ongoing federal marijuana prohibition. <span id="more-40861"></span></p> <p>Rep. Ed Osienski (D) is the chief sponsor of both House Bill 1 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/DE/bill/HB1/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1</a>) and House Bill (<a href="https://legiscan.com/DE/bill/HB2/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2</a>). Together, the two bills would legalize marijuana and create a regulatory and tax structure for the commercial cultivation and sale of cannabis in Delaware.</p> <p>HB1 would decriminalize marijuana for adults, allowing individuals aged 21 and over to possess use, share and purchase up to one ounce of cannabis. The personal cultivation of marijuana would remain illegal under this law.</p> <p>HB2 would create a basic system for a commercial marijuana market in the state under the control of the Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Enforcement (DATE).</p> <p>On Jan. 24, the House Revenue &amp; Finance Committee passed HB2 by a 7-2 vote. The following day, HB1 passed the Health &amp; Human Development Committee by an 11-4 vote.</p> <p>Osienski took a similar two-pronged approach in 2022. Decriminalization passed last year, but the regulatory scheme was narrowly defeated. Gov. John Carney (D) vetoed the decriminalization bill.</p> <p>The decriminalization bill only needs a simple majority to pass, but the regulatory scheme needs to garner a three-fifths majority because it includes taxes.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Delaware legalized medical marijuana in 2011 and decriminalized the possession or consumption of a “personal-use quantity” of marijuana for adults 21 or over in 2015. Last year, the <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/signed-as-law-delaware-bill-expands-marijuana-decriminalization-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">state decriminalized marijuana possession by minors</a> despite ongoing federal cannabis 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 Delaware 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>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 i</a>n 2019. 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/">legalized recreational marijuana through ballot measures</a> in the 2020 election. In 2021, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/to-the-governor-new-york-bill-legalizes-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/">New York</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-new-mexico-bill-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">New Mexico</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/virginia-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Virginia</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/connecticut-becomes-the-18th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Connecticut</a> legalized marijuana through legislative action, and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/05/signed-as-law-rhode-island-becomes-19th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/">Rhode Island legalized cannabis</a> for adult use in 2022. With Missouri and Maryland legalizing marijuana in November, there are now 37 states allowing cannabis for medical use, and 21 legalizing for adult recreational use.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. As Tenth Amendment Center Executive Director Michael Boldin noted, “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&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB2 will move to the House Appropriations Committee where it will need to get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. At the time of this report, it was unclear if HB1 would go to a second committee or straight 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/2023/01/delaware-committees-pass-bills-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-ongoing-prohibition/">Delaware Committees Pass Bills to Legalize Marijuana Despite Ongoing Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis Delaware HB1 HB2 Marijuana Mike Maharrey Wyoming Senate Passes Bill to Expand Food Freedom, Undermine the Federal Regulatory Scheme https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/wyoming-senate-passes-bill-to-expand-food-freedom-undermine-the-federal-regulatory-scheme/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:7124b458-edc7-7dc4-709f-d93366c921b1 Thu, 26 Jan 2023 17:10:06 +0000 <p>On Wednesday, the Wyoming Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill that would further increase food freedom in the state and potentially alleviate some of the recent price inflation on eggs and dairy.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/wyoming-senate-passes-bill-to-expand-food-freedom-undermine-the-federal-regulatory-scheme/">Wyoming Senate Passes Bill to Expand Food Freedom, Undermine the Federal Regulatory Scheme</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>CHEYENNE</strong>, Wyo. (Jan. 26, 2023)  &#8211; On Wednesday, the Wyoming Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill that would further increase food freedom in the state and potentially alleviate some of the recent price inflation on eggs and dairy.<span id="more-40845"></span></p> <p>Sen. Tim Salazar (R) and a coalition of 10 fellow Republicans introduced Senate Bill 102 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WY/bill/SF0102/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SF102</a>) on Jan. 12. The legislation would expand the Wyoming Food Freedom Act to allow a “designated agent” to “facilitate sales transactions” in the marketing, transport, storage, or delivery of food and beverage products. Under the current law, producers can only sell directly to consumers.</p> <p>The proposed law would also add eggs and dairy products to the foods that can be sold at farmer&#8217;s markets, farms, ranches, producer&#8217;s homes or offices, and the retail location of the third-party sellers.</p> <p>The Senate passed SF102 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/WY/rollcall/SF0102/id/1235385" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a 30-1 vote</a>.</p> <p>Expanding the market for eggs and dairy could provide some relief for Wyoming residents struggling to deal with price inflation. The price of both eggs and milk has increased precipitously over the last year. Opening up the market to more producers and sellers could help the people of Wyoming to get some relief from the money-printing frenzy of recent years.</p> <p><strong>WYOMING LEADS THE WAY</strong></p> <p>Wyoming was the first state to enact a comprehensive Food Freedom Act back in 2015. The law allows the sale of many foods and food products direct from the producer to the consumer without adhering to onerous state regulatory and licensing requirements. The expansive law even allows poultry farmers with fewer than 1,000 birds to sell chicken and turkey, along with products made from their birds outside of the regulatory system. It also authorizes the sale of raw milk, rabbit meat and most farm-raised fish.</p> <p>In 2020, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/now-in-effect-wyoming-laws-expand-food-freedom-undermine-federal-regulations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the state expanded food freedom</a> to allow consumers to buy individual cuts of meat through herd-share agreements. The law is modeled on laws that allow the sale of raw milk in some states. Consumers pay the rancher a fee for a “share” in either an individual animal or a herd. In return, the consumer gets cuts of meat. A second expansion allows for the sale of “non-potentially hazardous” homemade foods to be sold in retail stores and restaurants. “Potentially-non hazardous foods are defined as ” food that does not require time or temperature control for safety and includes jams, uncut fruits and vegetables, pickled vegetables, hard candies, fudge, nut mixes, granola, dry soup mixes excluding meat-based soup mixes, coffee beans, popcorn and baked goods that do not include dairy or meat frosting or filling or other potentially hazardous frosting or filling.</p> <p>Following Wyoming’s lead, North Dakota and Utah passed similar laws. In 2017, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/signed-by-the-governor-maine-bill-gives-local-government-control-over-food-regulations-will-hinder-fda/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Maine enacted a law</a> that gives local governments the authority to enact ordinances regulating local food distribution without state interference.</p> <p>Food freedom laws not only open markets, expand consumer choice, and create opportunities for farmers and entrepreneurs; they take a step toward restoring the United States’ original political structure. Instead of top-down, centralized regulatory schemes, these laws encourage local control, and they can effectively nullify federal regulatory schemes in effect by hindering the enforcement of federal regulations.</p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/29/report-food-freedom-flourishes-in-three-states-with-government-regulators-out-of-the-way/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Food freedom has flourished in these states</a> with hundreds of local businesses sprouting up in recent years without a single report of foodborne illness.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL CONTROL</strong></p> <p>While state law does not bind the FDA, the passage of food freedom laws creates an environment hostile to federal food regulation in those states. And because the state does not interfere with local food producers, that means it will not enforce FDA mandates either. Should the feds want to enforce food laws in states with food freedom laws, they have to do so by themselves.</p> <p>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. 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 food laws almost certainly have a similar impact on FDA regulation. They make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce their will within the state.</p> <p>While FDA apologists claim the agency only wants to protect consumers, in truth, federal regulations tend to benefit big companies and squeeze out family farms. In the name of safety, FDA regulations limit your ability to access local, fresh food.</p> <p>For example, the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 mandates meat must be slaughtered and processed at a federally inspected slaughterhouse, or one inspected in a state with meat inspection laws at least as strict as federal requirements. Small slaughterhouses cannot meet the requirements. As a result, the <a href="http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/blog/2015/09/10/the-wholesome-meat-act-of-1967-disaster-for-small-slaughterhouses-from-the-start/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">meat processing industry went through massive consolidation</a>. Since the passage of the act, the number of slaughterhouses dropped from more than 10,000 to less than 3,000. Today, instead of hundreds of companies processing meat, three corporations control virtually the entire industry.</p> <p>This does not promote food safety. In fact, by concentrating meat processing in a few facilities, the likelihood of widespread contamination increases. A single sick cow can infect thousands of pounds of beef in one of these corporate slaughterhouses. In a more diversified, decentralized system, outbreaks generally remain limited to small regions. You never saw these nationwide recalls in the era of diversified meat processing.</p> <p>The Food Safety Modernization Act (<a href="http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/blog/tag/fsma/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FSMA</a>) “directs FDA to build an integrated national food safety system in partnership with state and local authorities explicitly recognizing that all food safety agencies need to work in integrated ways to achieve public health goals.”</p> <p>Essentially, this means <a href="http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/blog/2016/04/26/fda-taking-over-state-food-regulation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dictating state food laws</a>.</p> <p>Constitutionally, food safety falls within the powers reserved to the states and the people. The feds have no authority to enforce food safety laws within the borders of a state. Food freedom laws undermine these federal regulatory schemes. Widespread adoption of food freedom, along with state and local refusal to enforce federal mandates, could make FDA regulations virtually impossible to enforce and nullify them in effect and practice.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT<br /> </strong></p> <p>SF102 will now move to the House for further consideration. Once referred to a House committee, it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/wyoming-senate-passes-bill-to-expand-food-freedom-undermine-the-federal-regulatory-scheme/">Wyoming Senate Passes Bill to Expand Food Freedom, Undermine the Federal Regulatory Scheme</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. FDA State Bills dairy Eggs food freedom SF102 Wyoming Mike Maharrey North Dakota Senate Committee Passes Measure to Put Electronic Communications and Data Privacy Amendment on the Ballot https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/north-dakota-senate-committee-passes-measure-to-put-electronic-communications-and-data-privacy-amendment-on-the-ballot/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:07b32ed4-41d4-91d2-671b-bfa35b8fa441 Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:24:26 +0000 <p>A North Dakota Senate committee passed a resolution that would put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot to elevate the privacy of a person’s electronic communications and data to the same level as “persons, houses, papers and possessions.”</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/north-dakota-senate-committee-passes-measure-to-put-electronic-communications-and-data-privacy-amendment-on-the-ballot/">North Dakota Senate Committee Passes Measure to Put Electronic Communications and Data Privacy Amendment on the Ballot</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>BISMARCK</strong>, N.D. (Jan. 26, 2023) – On Wednesday, a North Dakota Senate committee passed a resolution that would put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot to elevate the privacy of a person’s electronic communications and data to the same level as “persons, houses, papers and possessions.”<span id="more-40860"></span></p> <p>A coalition of six Republicans filed Senate Concurrent Resolution 4006 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/ND/bill/SCR4006/2023">SCR4006</a>) on January 12.  If approved, the resolution would allow voters to consider an amendment to the <a href="https://www.ndcourts.gov/legal-resources/nd-constitution">North Dakota State Constitution</a> that would add the following highlighted words to Art. 1 Sec. 8.</p> <blockquote><p>“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, <strong>electronic data and electronic communications</strong>, and effects against unreasonable searches or seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing as may be the place to be searched, the persons and things to be seized, and the electronic data or communication to be accessed.”</p></blockquote> <p>On Jan. 25, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed SCR4006 by a 5-2 vote.</p> <p>Language in the Amendment was modeled on <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Electronic_Data_Protection,_Amendment_9_%28August_2014%29" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Missouri Amendment 9</a>, which passed with an overwhelming 75 percent of the vote in 2014. Similar amendments have passed in <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/11/montana-voters-approve-constitutional-amendment-to-treat-electronic-data-as-persons-houses-papers-and-possessions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Montana</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/michigan-voters-approve-electronic-communications-and-data-privacy-amendment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michigan</a>, and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/new-hampshire-privacy-amendment-passes-by-huge-margin/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Hampshire</a>.</p> <p>As the ACLU pointed out in <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/election-day-voters-new-hampshire-can-protect" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an article supporting the New Hampshire amendment</a>, without protections explicitly enshrined in the state constitution, the right to electronic data privacy exists at the whims of state legislators.</p> <blockquote><p>“Without state constitutional protections, privacy is not the … default setting. Rather, it needs to be repeatedly established, protected, and defended by the state legislature each time a new surveillance technology or method is established, which is a common occurrence in our modern technological world. State legislators should not play an endless game of Whack-A-Mole against threats to their residents’ privacy. Relying exclusively on piecemeal statutes or search and seizure provisions written before the dawn of the internet is no way … to protect privacy.”</p></blockquote> <p>Practically speaking inclusion of electronic communications and data in the state’s constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures means state and local police in North Dakota would be required to obtain a judicial warrant, supported by probable cause, before accessing cell phones and other electronic devices regardless of any legislative statute. It would also set the foundation to help prevent law enforcement from accessing private information through third parties.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE</strong></p> <p>While a state constitutional amendment only binds state agencies and not the federal government, the amendment would also set the foundation to help protect North Dakotans from the ever-growing federal surveillance state.</p> <p>The passage of the amendment would create the legal framework to limit state and local surveillance and minimize the amount of personal information collected and stored by state and local governments. By doing so, it would also impact federal surveillance programs that depend on state and local support.</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.</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>In practice, local data collection using ALPRs, stingrays, drones and other spy technologies create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans, and obtain and store information on millions of Americans, including phone calls, emails, web browsing history and text messages, all with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local assistance, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. When the state limits surveillance and data collection, it means less information the feds can tap into. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.</p> <p><strong>PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION</strong></p> <p>By including access to “electronic communications and data” under the same warrant requirements – describing them, probable cause, and supported by oath or affirmation – as “person, houses, papers, and possessions,” it would make such data gathered by federal agencies such as the NSA or FBI and shared with state and local law enforcement more likely to be inadmissible in state criminal proceedings. This protection will remain in place for North Dakotans even if federal courts ultimately put the seal of approval on warrantless data collection by the NSA and other federal agencies.</p> <p><em>Reuters</em> <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">revealed</a> the extent of such NSA data sharing with state and local law enforcement in an August 2013 article. According to documents obtained by the news agency, the NSA passes information to police through a formerly secret DEA unit known as the Special Operations Divisions and the cases “rarely involve national security issues.” Almost all of the information involves regular criminal investigations, not terror-related investigations.</p> <p>In other words, not only does the NSA collect and store this data, using it to build profiles, the agency encourages state and local law enforcement to violate the Fourth Amendment by making use of this information in their day-to-day investigations.</p> <p>Despite the revelations by Edward Snowden, <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/09/07/big-brother-has-hacked-the-constitution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NSA spying has continued</a>.</p> <p>This is “the most threatening situation to our constitutional republic since the Civil War,” former NSA technical chief William Binney said.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SCR4006 will now move to the Senate floor 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/2023/01/north-dakota-senate-committee-passes-measure-to-put-electronic-communications-and-data-privacy-amendment-on-the-ballot/">North Dakota Senate Committee Passes Measure to Put Electronic Communications and Data Privacy Amendment on the Ballot</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. State Bills Surveillance electronic data North Dakota Privacy SCR4006 surveillance Mike Maharrey New York Assembly Bill Would Ban Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition Surveillance https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/new-york-assembly-bill-would-ban-law-enforcement-use-of-facial-recognition-surveillance/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:a188fae6-b23e-de84-bf9a-8f5b175ec413 Wed, 25 Jan 2023 22:36:43 +0000 <p>The legislation would prohibit any police agency or police officer from acquiring, possessing, accessing, installing, activating, or using any “biometric surveillance system” including facial recognition.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/new-york-assembly-bill-would-ban-law-enforcement-use-of-facial-recognition-surveillance/">New York Assembly Bill Would Ban Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition Surveillance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>ALBANY</strong>, N.Y. (Jan. 25, 2023) &#8211; A bill filed in the New York Assembly would prohibit the use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technology by law enforcement. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in New York; it could also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-40847"></span></p> <p>Asm. Deborah Glick (D) and a coalition of four fellow Democrats introduced Assembly Bill 1891 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/A01891/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A1891</a>) on Jan. 23. It is a companion to Senate Bill 1609 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/S01609/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">S1609</a>) introduced earlier this month. The legislation would prohibit any police agency or police officer from acquiring, possessing, accessing, installing, activating, or using any “biometric surveillance system” including facial recognition. It would also bar the use of any biometric information or surveillance information derived from the use of a biometric surveillance system by any other entity. Provisions in the bill would also allow for individuals to seek damages for the violation of the law.</p> <p>“Biometric surveillance system” is defined as:</p> <blockquote><p>“An automated or semi-automated process by which a person is identified or attempted to be identified based on their biometric information, including identification of known or unknown individuals or groups; and/or an automated or semi-automated process that generates, or assists in generating, surveillance information about an individual based on their biometric information.”</p></blockquote> <p>A1891 includes provisions allowing the use of mobile fingerprint scanners and the state DNA database.</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">2019 report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state driver’s 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 the story wasn’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 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>Despite the outrage generated by these reports, Congress has done nothing to roll back this facial recognition program.</p> <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. The 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>A1891 was referred to the Assembly Government Operations Committee where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/new-york-assembly-bill-would-ban-law-enforcement-use-of-facial-recognition-surveillance/">New York Assembly Bill Would Ban Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition Surveillance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Facial Recognition State Bills A1891 Biometrics facial recognition New York Privacy surveillance Mike Maharrey Oklahoma Bill Would Ban Enforcement of Some Federal Gun Control; Pistol Braces, Frame or Receiver Rule and More https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/oklahoma-bill-would-ban-enforcement-of-some-federal-gun-control-pistol-braces-frame-or-receiver-rule-and-more/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:e0819e8d-13be-72d3-1bd8-7327e1360c68 Wed, 25 Jan 2023 22:32:29 +0000 <p>SB736 would amend that law to prohibit state and local government agencies and their employees from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a "federal ban" on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition. It would also prohibit state and local agencies from expending public funds for the enforcement of the same.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/oklahoma-bill-would-ban-enforcement-of-some-federal-gun-control-pistol-braces-frame-or-receiver-rule-and-more/">Oklahoma Bill Would Ban Enforcement of Some Federal Gun Control; Pistol Braces, Frame or Receiver Rule and More</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>OKLAHOMA CITY</strong>, Okla. (Jan. 25, 2023) &#8211; A bill filed in the Oklahoma Senate would prohibit state and local enforcement of some current and future federal gun control. The passage of this bill would take a step toward stopping some federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in the state. <span id="more-40848"></span></p> <p>Sen. Tom Woods filed Senate Bill 736 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/SB736/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB736</a>) for introduction when the Oklahoma Senate convenes on Feb. 6. The legislation would put some teeth in <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/oklahoma-second-amendment-sanctuary-law-creates-a-sanctuary-for-nothing/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a “Second Amendment Sanctuary State Act,” passed in 2021</a> that has little to no practical effect.</p> <p>SB736 would amend that law to prohibit state and local government agencies and their employees from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a &#8220;federal ban&#8221; on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition. It would also prohibit state and local agencies from expending public funds for the enforcement of the same.</p> <p>A &#8220;federal ban&#8221; is defined as &#8220;a federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that is enacted, adopted, or that becomes effective on or after November 1, 2022, or a new and more restrictive interpretation of a law that existed on November 1, 2022, that infringes upon, calls into question, prohibits, restricts, or requires individual licensure for or registration of the purchase, ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm, any magazine or other ammunition feeding device, or other firearm accessories.&#8221;</p> <p>This would include, at minimum, new ATF regulations on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/07/final-atf-rule-on-pistol-braces-expected-in-december/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pistol braces</a> that went into effect this year, along with the <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/3-states-vs-the-atf-frame-or-receiver-rule/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&#8220;frame or receiver&#8221; rule</a>, and potential future measures as well.</p> <p>The approach is similar to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-montana-prohibits-state-enforcement-of-any-new-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a Montana law that went into effect in 2021</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 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 Oklahoma 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>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB736 will be officially introduced on Feb. 6 and referred to a committee where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/oklahoma-bill-would-ban-enforcement-of-some-federal-gun-control-pistol-braces-frame-or-receiver-rule-and-more/">Oklahoma Bill Would Ban Enforcement of Some Federal Gun Control; Pistol Braces, Frame or Receiver Rule and More</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Federal Gun Control Oklahoma SB736 Mike Maharrey Missouri Bill Would Legalize Psilocybin for Medical Use Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/missouri-bill-would-legalize-psilocybin-for-medical-use-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:bccf3eb5-6c8e-8f09-1c7c-df481cb67477 Wed, 25 Jan 2023 20:31:24 +0000 <p>The legislation would amend existing state law by allowing the use of psilocybin by qualifying patients for medicinal and therapeutic purposes, including, but not limited to, the provision of physical, mental, or behavioral health care.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/missouri-bill-would-legalize-psilocybin-for-medical-use-despite-federal-prohibition/">Missouri Bill Would Legalize Psilocybin for Medical Use Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (Jan. 25, 2023) – A bill filed in the Missouri House would legalize the use of psilocybin for medical use, setting the stage to nullify federal prohibition in practice and effect.<span id="more-40797"></span></p> <p>Rep Tony Lovasco (R) filed House Bill 869 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/HB869/2023">HB869</a>) on Jan. 18. The legislation would amend existing state law by allowing the use of psilocybin by qualifying patients for medicinal and therapeutic purposes, including, but not limited to, the provision of physical, mental, or behavioral health care.</p> <p>The legislation includes provisions to protect doctors who recommend psilocybin for treatment.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a physician shall not be subject to criminal or civil liability or sanction under the laws of this state for recommending natural medicine to an eligible patient.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Psilocybin is a hallucinogenic compound found in certain mushrooms. A number of studies have shown psilocybin to be effective in the treatment of depression, PTSD, chronic pain and addiction. For instance, <a href="https://maps.org/other-psychedelic-research/211-psilocybin-research/psilocybin-studies-in-progress/1268-johns_hopkins_study_of_psilocybin_in_cancer_patients" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a Johns Hopkins study</a> found that “psilocybin produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer.”</p> <p>Efforts to legalize psilocybin for medical use in Missouri follow <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/oregon-votes-to-decriminalize-cocaine-heroin-and-other-hard-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a successful ballot measure that decriminalized a number of drugs, including heroin and cocaine in Oregon</a>. In 2022, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/11/colorado-voters-decriminalize-magic-mushrooms-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colorado voters passed a ballot measure</a> decriminalizing several naturally occurring psychedelic substances. At least 14 cities including <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/11/detroit-voters-approve-measure-to-decriminalize-magic-mushrooms-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Detroit, Michigan</a> have decriminalized “magic mushrooms.”</p> <p>Psychedelic decriminalization and legalization efforts at the state and local levels are moving forward despite the federal government’s prohibition of psilocybin and other psychedelic substances.</p> <p><strong>LEGALITY</strong></p> <p>Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains the complete prohibition of psilocybin. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate such substances 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>In effect, the passage of HB869 would end criminal enforcement of a layer of laws prohibiting the possession of psilocybin in Missouri. As we’ve seen with marijuana and hemp, when states and localities stop enforcing laws banning a substance, the federal government finds it virtually impossible to maintain prohibition. For instance, FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By curtailing or ending state prohibition, states sweep part 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 and local assistance, and the same will likely hold true with other drugs.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB869 will be assigned to a committee, where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/missouri-bill-would-legalize-psilocybin-for-medical-use-despite-federal-prohibition/">Missouri Bill Would Legalize Psilocybin for Medical Use Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills HB869 magic mushrooms Missouri psilocybin Alan Mosley Wyoming House Bill Would Set Foundation to End Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/wyoming-house-bill-would-set-foundation-to-end-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:a53b4fbf-99e1-7f28-2c28-11ac0541cf43 Wed, 25 Jan 2023 19:47:12 +0000 <p>Titled the Defend the Guard Act, the legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Wyoming National Guard into “active duty combat” unless specific constitutional requirements are me</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/wyoming-house-bill-would-set-foundation-to-end-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/">Wyoming House Bill Would Set Foundation to End Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>CHEYENNE</strong>, Wyo. (Jan. 25, 2023) – A bill introduced in the Wyoming House would require the governor to stop unconstitutional foreign combat deployments of the state’s National Guard troops. Passage into law would take a big step toward restoring the founders’ framework for a state-federal balance under the Constitution.<span id="more-40834"></span></p> <p>A coalition of seven Republicans and two Democrats introduced House Bill 197 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WY/bill/HB0197/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB197</a>) on Jan. 21. This is a companion to Senate Bill 119 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WY/bill/SF0119/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SF119</a>) introduced a week earlier.</p> <p>Titled the <em>Defend the Guard Act</em>, the legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Wyoming National Guard into “active duty combat” unless specific constitutional requirements are met:</p> <blockquote><p>The United States Congress has passed an official declaration of war or has taken an official action pursuant to article I, section 8, clause 15 of the United States Constitution to explicitly call forth the Wyoming National Guard and any member thereof for the enumerated purposes of expressly executing the laws of the union, repelling invasion or suppressing an insurrection.</p></blockquote> <p>“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service of the United States:</p> <ul> <li>Participation in an armed conflict;</li> <li>Performance of a hazardous service relating to an armed conflict in a foreign state; or</li> <li>Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war.</li> </ul> <p>“Official declaration of war” is defined as “an official declaration of war made by the United States Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.”</p> <p>The passage of HB197 would take a step toward reasserting state control over its militia.</p> <p>This is one of at least seven <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/10/04/defend-the-guard-a-powerful-check-on-unconstitutional-war-powers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Defend the Guard bills</a> that have been introduced in 2023.</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, Wyoming National Guard units have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and elsewhere.</p> <p>Since none of these missions have been accompanied by a Constitutional declaration of war, nor were they in pursuance of any of the three conditions set forth in Article 1 Sec. 8, the 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. The 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</strong></p> <p>At the time of this report, HB197 had not been referred to a committee. Once it receives a committee assignment, it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/wyoming-house-bill-would-set-foundation-to-end-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/">Wyoming House Bill Would Set Foundation to End Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Defend the Guard State Bills HB197 Militia National Guard War Powers Wyoming Mike Maharrey Recipe for Revolution? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/recipe-for-revolution/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:74e1af83-ab0a-2fa8-fc46-37b525c5e10c Wed, 25 Jan 2023 19:22:08 +0000 <p>The “Real American Revolution” was a radical change in the views of the people - and it happened years before the War for Independence. Some of the main underlying principles are also essential for a radical change in the views of the people today.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/recipe-for-revolution/">Recipe for Revolution?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>The “Real American Revolution” was a radical change in the views of the people &#8211; and it happened years before the War for Independence. Some of the main underlying principles are also essential for a radical change in the views of the people today.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: Jan 25, 2023<span id="more-40849"></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/NgRXr8L622o?start=49" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" 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/Jefferson/03-08-02-0560" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Adams To Thomas Jefferson (24 Aug 1815)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/adams-the-works-of-john-adams-vol-10-letters-1811-1825-indexes#lf1431-10_head_082" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Adams To Thomas McKean (26 Nov 1815)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/adams-the-works-of-john-adams-vol-10-letters-1811-1825-indexes#lf1431-10_head_087" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Adams &#8211; to Jedediah Morse (29 Nov 1815)</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-5212" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee (8 May 1825)</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6735" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Adams to William Tudor Sr (29 Mar 1817)</a></p> <p><a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/speech-against-writs-of-assistance/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Otis &#8211; Speech against the writs of assistance (1761)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/paine-the-rights-of-man-part-i-1791-ed" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Paine &#8211; Rights of Man (1791)</a></p> <p><a href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch18s5.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">George Mason (April 1775)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.redhill.org/primary-sources/patrick-henrys-resolutions-against-the-stamp-act/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Patrick Henry &#8211; Virginia Resolves (1765)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/patrick-henry-vs-the-stamp-act/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Episode &#8211; Patrick Henry vs the Stamp Act</a></p> <p><a href="https://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/wirt/menu.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">William Wirt &#8211; 1817 </a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/adams-the-works-of-john-adams-vol-10-letters-1811-1825-indexes#lf1431-10_head_114" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Adams To William Wirt (5 Jan 1818)</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-12-02-0398" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Benjamin Waterhouse to Thomas Jefferson (20 Feb 1818)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/ford-the-works-vol-12-correspondence-and-papers-1816-1826#lf0054-12_head_035" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson &#8211; to Benjamin Waterhouse (3 Mar 1818)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/09/blueprint-for-liberty-the-suffolk-resolves-of-1774/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Episode &#8211; Blueprint for Liberty: The Suffolk Resolves of 1774</a></p> <p><a href="https://americainclass.org/sources/makingrevolution/crisis/text3/stampactresponse1765.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Dickinson &#8211; Broadside Against the Stamp Act</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/collected-political-writings#lf1644_head_022" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Otis Jr (11 Jan 1762)</a></p> <p><a href="https://ahp.gatech.edu/boston_mass_orat_1774.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Hancock Massacre Day Oration (5 Mar 1774)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/an-early-bill-of-rights-declaration-and-resolves-of-the-first-continental-congress/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Declaration And Resolves Of The First Continental Congress (14 Oct 1774)</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Causes_and_Necessity_of_Taking_Up_Arms" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms</a> </p> <p><a href="https://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Samuel Adams &#8211; the Rights of the Colonists</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.drjosephwarren.com/2013/04/the-mistress-we-court-is-liberty/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Joseph Warren to Samuel Adams (15 June 1774)</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-01-02-0052-0006" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Adams &#8211; (30 Sept 1765)</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1776-1785/thomas-paine-american-crisis/chapter-i---the-american-crisis---december-23-1776.php" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Paine &#8211; American Crisis (23 Dec 1776)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/adams-the-works-of-john-adams-vol-10-letters-1811-1825-indexes#lf1431-10_head_120" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Adams To Hezekiah Niles (13 Feb 1818)</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-012523:5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://rumble.com/v27025q-recipe-for-revolution.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Rumble</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1618299828500582402" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://sovren.media/video/recipe-for-revolution-2414.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Sovren</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1465055302490525702" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/recipe-for-revolution-63d17a5ec5c7a0172a225d80" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/e16152a9-8843-4134-9c5e-29eec8985fa7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/ihdksFXwKY/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/JeBhPwDlPuZS/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7023833013645955072" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</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></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/2023/01/recipe-for-revolution/">Recipe for Revolution?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. American Revolution Audio/Video Founding Principles Path to Liberty Declaratory Act Founders Liberty Natural Rights Quotes Resistance Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 37:30 The “Real American Revolution” was a radical change in the views of the people - and it happened years before the War for Independence. Some of the main underlying principles are also essential for a radical change in the views of the people today. The “Real American Revolution” was a radical change in the views of the people - and it happened years before the War for Independence. Some of the main underlying principles are also essential for a radical change in the views of the people today. New York Senate Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture and Opt State Out of Federal Forfeiture Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/new-york-senate-bill-would-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-and-opt-state-out-of-federal-forfeiture-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:13372bd7-15eb-15a5-4914-f16e9adab21a Wed, 25 Jan 2023 18:19:53 +0000 <p>A bill introduced in the New York Senate would end civil asset forfeiture in the state and replace it with a criminal process. Passage of the bill would also opt the state out of a program that allows police to circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the feds.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/new-york-senate-bill-would-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-and-opt-state-out-of-federal-forfeiture-program/">New York Senate Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture and Opt State Out of Federal Forfeiture Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>ALBANY</strong>, N.Y. (Jan. 25, 2023) – A bill introduced in the New York Senate would end civil asset forfeiture in the state and replace it with a criminal process. Passage of the bill would also opt the state out of a program that allows police to circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the feds.<span id="more-40832"></span></p> <p>Sen. Jamaal Bailey (D) introduced Senate Bill 2192 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/S02192/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">S2192</a>) on Jan. 19. It is a companion bill to Assembly Bill 641 (A641) <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/new-york-bill-would-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-and-opt-state-out-of-federal-forfeiture-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">introduced earlier this month</a>.</p> <p>The legislation would replace the state’s civil asset forfeiture process with a criminal process. Under the new process, forfeiture could only occur if the “prosecuting authority secures a conviction of a crime that authorizes the forfeiture of property and the prosecuting authority establishes by clear and convincing evidence the property is an instrumentality of or proceeds derived directly from the crime for which the state secured a conviction.”</p> <p>S2192 would also address the “policing for profit” motive inherent in civil asset forfeiture by requiring the state treasurer to deposit forfeiture proceeds into the general fund after payment of specific allowable expenses. Under current law, police can keep up to 60 percent of forfeiture proceeds in New York.</p> <p>Passage of the bill would opt New York out of a federal program that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws in most cases. 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, 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>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<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. Through this process, state or local police hand the forfeiture case to the feds to prosecute even though there was initially no federal involvement in the investigation and seizure. State and local police can also tap into equitable sharing by working with the feds on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/state-federal-task-forces-and-the-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">joint task forces</a>. About 85 percent of equitable sharing cases arise from these joint task forces, but a significant number also begin with adoption.</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>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>Language in the bill would limit New York law enforcement from participating in the equitable sharing program through the adoption process.</p> <blockquote><p>A law enforcement agency shall not offer for adoption any property seized under state law, to a federal agency for the purpose of forfeiture under the federal Controlled Substances Act, or other federal law unless such seized property includes United States currency that exceeds twenty thousand dollars.</p></blockquote> <p>I would also limit participation in the program by law enforcement agencies working on joint task forces. Forfeiture proceedings for property seized by joint state/federal task forces would have to be prosecuted in state courts unless the seizure includes currency over $20,000. State and local law enforcement agencies would be prohibited from receiving equitable sharing funds if the federal government requires federal forfeiture in cases involving less than $20,000 in currency.</p> <p>Most forfeitures fall below the $20,000 currency threshold.</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>S2192 was referred to the Senate Codes Committee where it must receive a hearing and 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/2023/01/new-york-senate-bill-would-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-and-opt-state-out-of-federal-forfeiture-program/">New York Senate Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture and Opt State Out of Federal Forfeiture Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing New York Policing for Profit S2192 Mike Maharrey Maryland Bill Would Limit Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/maryland-bill-would-limit-law-enforcement-use-of-facial-recognition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:567d7c56-2a2a-e153-c84a-bbb00ceba786 Wed, 25 Jan 2023 16:19:54 +0000 <p>ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Jan. 25, 2023) – A bill introduced in the Maryland Senate would place limits on government use of facial recognition technology. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in Maryland; it could also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state. Sen. Charles Sydnor (D) introduced Senate Bill 192 (SB192) on [&#8230;]</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/maryland-bill-would-limit-law-enforcement-use-of-facial-recognition/">Maryland Bill Would Limit Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>ANNAPOLIS</strong>, Md. (Jan. 25, 2023) – A bill introduced in the Maryland Senate would place limits on government use of facial recognition technology. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in Maryland; it could also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-40831"></span></p> <p>Sen. Charles Sydnor (D) introduced Senate Bill 192 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/SB192/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB192</a>) on Feb. 7. The proposed law would limit the use of facial recognition to “crimes of violence,” human trafficking, or a criminal act “involving circumstances presenting a substantial and ongoing threat to public safety or national security.” When used in such an investigation, facial recognition could not be used as the sole basis to establish probable cause.</p> <p>Results generated by facial recognition could only be introduced as evidence in a criminal proceeding to establish probable cause or a positive identification in connection with a warrant or at a preliminary hearing.</p> <p>SB192 would ban the use of facial recognition on individuals “engaged in activity protected under the United States Constitution, the Maryland Constitution, or the Maryland Declaration of Rights” unless there is reasonable suspicion to believe the individual has committed a crime. It would also prohibit using facial recognition on a sketch or manually produced image, and it would ban the use of facial recognition for live or real-time identification.</p> <p>While passage into law would not end government use of facial recognition in Maryland, it would set the foundation by setting limits on the technology and preventing ongoing surveillance using facial recognition.</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">2019 report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state driver’s 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 the story wasn’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 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>Despite the outrage generated by these reports, Congress has done nothing to roll back this facial recognition program.</p> <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. The 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>SB192 was referred to the Senate Judicial Proceeding Committee where it must receive a hearing and 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/2023/01/maryland-bill-would-limit-law-enforcement-use-of-facial-recognition/">Maryland Bill Would Limit Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Facial Recognition State Bills facial recognition Maryland Privacy SB192 surveillance Mike Maharrey Indiana Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Cannabis Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/indiana-bill-would-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-cannabis-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ed504eec-83d7-09bc-854a-b7c24aa6a5e5 Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:20:01 +0000 <p>The bill would create a program to license and regulate the research, possession, cultivation and distribution of marijuana for both medical and recreational use. A qualifying medical marijuana patient would have to be at least 21 years old and have a qualifying medical condition. Possession of adult-use cannabis would be limited to 1 ounce in a 30-day period.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/indiana-bill-would-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-cannabis-prohibition/">Indiana Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Cannabis Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><b>INDIANAPOLIS, </b>Ind. (Jan. 25, 2023) – A filed in the Indiana Senate would legalize marijuana in the state despite ongoing federal cannabis prohibition.<span id="more-40792"></span></p> <p>Sen. Rodney Pol (D) and Sen. Jon Ford (R) filed Senate Bill 377 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/IN/bill/SB0377/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB377</a>) on Jan. 19. The bill would create a program to license and regulate the research, possession, cultivation and distribution of marijuana for both medical and recreational use. A qualifying medical marijuana patient would have to be at least 21 years old and have a qualifying medical condition. Possession of adult-use cannabis would be limited to 1 ounce in a 30-day period.</p> <p>There is also a provision allowing people to expunge a marijuana-related conviction if the activity would be legalized under the bill.</p> <p>Under current law, only products with low THC and high cannabidiol (CBD) are allowed.</p> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</strong></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains a 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 low-THC medicinal cannabis removed a small layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state even though federal prohibition remains in effect. Legalizing marijuana would wipe more state prohibition laws from the books. 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>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 i</a>n 2019. 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/">legalized recreational marijuana through ballot measures</a> in the 2020 election. In 2021, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/to-the-governor-new-york-bill-legalizes-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/">New York</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-new-mexico-bill-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">New Mexico</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/virginia-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Virginia</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/connecticut-becomes-the-18th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Connecticut</a> legalized marijuana through legislative action, and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/05/signed-as-law-rhode-island-becomes-19th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/">Rhode Island legalized cannabis</a> for adult use in 2022. With Missouri and Maryland legalizing marijuana in November, there are now 37 states allowing cannabis for medical use, and 21 legalizing for adult recreational use.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. As Tenth Amendment Center Executive Director Michael Boldin noted, “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>SB377 has been referred to the Committee on Commerce and Technology, where it will need a public hearing and a majority vote before it can advance.</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/2023/01/indiana-bill-would-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-cannabis-prohibition/">Indiana Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Despite Federal Cannabis Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis Indiana Marijuana SB377 TJ Martinell One Nation? Not So Fast! https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/one-nation-not-so-fast/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:9dc10c4d-351f-c075-2df4-a8b226b0ee45 Wed, 25 Jan 2023 02:54:47 +0000 <p>Most people think these United States are "one nation."</p> <p>Most people are wrong.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/one-nation-not-so-fast/">One Nation? Not So Fast!</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Most people think these United States are &#8220;one nation.&#8221;</p> <p>Most people are wrong.</p> <p>That was not the system created by the Constitution</p> <blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnzqO8eDhyQ/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"> <div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnzqO8eDhyQ/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> </p> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div> </div> <p></a></p> <p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnzqO8eDhyQ/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Tenth Amendment Center (@tenthamendmentcenter)</a></p> </div> </blockquote> <p> <script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script></p> <p><strong>For More Information</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/04/10/one-nation-indivisible/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">One Nation, Indivisible?</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/07/30/this-is-not-one-nation-and-never-was/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">This Is Not “One Nation” and Never Was</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/constitution-101-one-nation-indivisible/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Constitution 101: One Nation, Indivisible</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/2023/01/one-nation-not-so-fast/">One Nation? Not So Fast!</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Federalism Maharrey Minute Constitution one nation Mike Maharrey Colorado Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture and Further Opt State Out of Federal Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/colorado-bill-would-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-and-further-opt-state-out-of-federal-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d31e86da-299b-c639-edea-a74eaa2f19f5 Wed, 25 Jan 2023 02:38:22 +0000 <p>HB1086 builds on previous forfeiture reforms. In 2017, Colorado imposed strict reporting requirements on asset forfeiture in the state and it expanded those requirements in 2018. This kind of transparency often creates the momentum needed to drive future change.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/colorado-bill-would-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-and-further-opt-state-out-of-federal-program/">Colorado Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture and Further Opt State Out of Federal Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>DENVER</strong>, Colo. (Jan. 24, 2023) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Colorado House would end civil asset forfeiture in the state and replace it with a criminal process. Passage would also further opt the state out of a program that allows police to circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the feds.<span id="more-40833"></span></p> <p>A coalition of three Republicans introduced House Bill 1086 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CO/bill/HB1086/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1086</a>) on Jan. 19. The legislation would replace the state’s civil asset forfeiture process with a criminal process requiring a criminal conviction before prosecutors could proceed with asset forfeiture in most cases.</p> <p>The bill also addresses the “policing for profit” motive inherent in civil asset forfeiture by requiring the state treasurer to deposit 50 percent of forfeiture proceeds into the general fund of the governmental body with authority over the seizing agency after payment of specific allowable expenses. Twenty-five percent would go to a behavioral health fund and the remaining proceeds would go to a law enforcement grant fund. Under the current law, police departments can keep up to 50 percent of forfeiture proceeds with another 25 percent going to the law enforcement grant fund.</p> <p>The passage of HB1086 would further opt Colorado out of a federal program that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws. 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>HB1086 builds on previous forfeiture reforms. In 2017, Colorado imposed strict reporting requirements on asset forfeiture in the state and it <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/09/now-in-effect-colorado-law-expands-asset-forfeiture-reforms/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">expanded those requirements in 2018</a>. This kind of transparency often creates the momentum needed to drive future change.</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>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<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. Through this process, state or local police hand the forfeiture case to the feds to prosecute even though there was initially no federal involvement in the investigation and seizure. State and local police can also tap into equitable sharing by working with the feds on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/state-federal-task-forces-and-the-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">joint task forces</a>. About 85 percent of equitable sharing cases arise from these joint task forces, but a significant number also begin with adoption.</p> <p>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>Through the equitable sharing program, 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>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>A law passed in 2017 prohibits Colorado law enforcement agencies from transferring seized property to a federal agency unless it has a net value of more than $50,000. It also prohibits state and local police from accepting payment or distribution from equitable sharing arising from a joint task force, or other multijurisdictional collaboration, unless the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized in the case is in excess of $50,000. This excludes 80 to 85 percent of all forfeitures from transfer to the feds, according to data compiled by the <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/05/civil-asset-forfeiture-bill-colorado-police-sheriffs/">Colorado Municipal League</a>.</p> <p>Language in HB1086 would further restrict Colorado law enforcement agencies from participating in this federal program. Under the proposed law, police and prosecutors could only transfer cases to the feds through adoption or join task forces if the seizure includes <em>currency</em> in excess of $50,000.</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>HB1086 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/colorado-bill-would-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-and-further-opt-state-out-of-federal-program/">Colorado Bill Would End Civil Asset Forfeiture and Further Opt State Out of Federal Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Asset Forfeiture State Bills colorado Equitable Sharing HB1086 Policing for Profit Mike Maharrey New Hampshire Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to End Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/new-hampshire-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-end-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:717db86b-7b02-63c3-9805-b504ebc894fc Wed, 25 Jan 2023 02:37:12 +0000 <p>Last week, a New Hampshire House committee held a hearing on a bill that would require the governor to stop unconstitutional foreign combat deployments of the state’s National Guard troops. Passage into law would take a big step toward restoring the founders’ framework for a state-federal balance under the Constitution.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/new-hampshire-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-end-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/">New Hampshire Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to End Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>CONCORD</strong>, N.H. (Jan 24, 2023) – Last week, a New Hampshire House committee held a hearing on a bill that would require the governor to stop unconstitutional foreign combat deployments of the state’s National Guard troops. Passage into law would take a big step toward restoring the founders’ framework for a state-federal balance under the Constitution.<span id="more-40835"></span></p> <p>Rep. John Potucek (R) introduced House Bill 229 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB229/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB229</a>) on Jan. 9 with three fellow Republicans and a Democrat. Titled the <em>Defend the Guard Act</em>, the legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the New Hampshire National Guard into “active duty combat” unless:</p> <blockquote><p>The United States Congress has passed an official declaration of war or has taken an official action pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the United States Constitution to explicitly call forth the New Hampshire national guard and any member thereof for the enumerated purposes to expressly execute the laws of the union, repel and invasion, or suppress an insurrection.</p></blockquote> <p>“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service of the United States:</p> <ul> <li>Participation in an armed conflict;</li> <li>Performance of a hazardous service relating to an armed conflict in a foreign state; or</li> <li>Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war.</li> </ul> <p>“Official declaration of war” is defined as “an official declaration of war made by the United States Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.”</p> <p>On Jan. 20, the House State-federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on HB229. This is an important first step in the legislative process.</p> <p>Fourteen people testified in favor of the bill, including Rep. Potucek. You can watch the entire hearing <a href="https://youtu.be/oSnAbff3mks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HERE</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;I myself am a Vietnam veteran, which precedes the National Guard being called up for ‘whatever.’ And I don’t like the ‘whatever.’ There should be a reason why they’re called up, and [there] should be justification with the Congress. Vietnam was a war whether they had a declaration of war or not, it was a war. I have enough friends who are on the wall in Washington. They died for a cause,&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>This is one of at least seven <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/10/04/defend-the-guard-a-powerful-check-on-unconstitutional-war-powers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Defend the Guard bills</a> introduced in 2023.</p> <p><strong>IN PRACTICE</strong></p> <p>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, Afghanistan, Bosnia and elsewhere.</p> <p>Since none of these missions have been accompanied by a Constitutional declaration of war, the 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 Florida 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</strong></p> <p>HB229 needs to be brought up for a vote in the House State-federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee. An &#8220;ought-to-pass&#8221; recommendation would significantly increase its chances of passing 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/2023/01/new-hampshire-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-end-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/">New Hampshire Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to End Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Defend the Guard State Bills HB229 New Hampshire War Powers Mike Maharrey Missouri Freedom to Farm Act Takes on both State and Federal Regulations on Farming and Ranching https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/missouri-freedom-to-farm-act-takes-on-both-state-and-federal-regulations-on-farming-and-ranching/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4151a3d3-fdfe-8219-d7f3-b1d03d482b58 Wed, 25 Jan 2023 02:27:40 +0000 <p>Titled the Freedom to Farm Act, the legislation would limit government regulation of farming and ranching in Missouri. The bill includes provisions addressing federal regulations.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/missouri-freedom-to-farm-act-takes-on-both-state-and-federal-regulations-on-farming-and-ranching/">Missouri Freedom to Farm Act Takes on both State and Federal Regulations on Farming and Ranching</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (Jan. 24, 2023) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Missouri Senate would ban state cooperation with the enforcement of federal regulations that interfere with farming and ranching in the state.<span id="more-40836"></span></p> <p>Sen. Jill Carter (R) introduced Senate Bill 84 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/SB84/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB84</a>) on Jan. 4. Titled the <em>Freedom to Farm Act</em>, the legislation would limit government regulation of farming and ranching in Missouri. The bill includes provisions addressing federal regulations.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices for sale or personal consumption shall be guaranteed free from government intervention and such practices occurring within this state shall not be infringed upon by the federal government under the regulation of interstate commerce.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>SB84 goes on to prohibit state and local government agencies from enforcing any provision of law, order, ordinance, rule, regulation, policy, or other similar measures that restrict farming or ranching practices. Any state or local agency could be held civilly liable in state court for violating this provision.</p> <p>In practice, the proposed law would create a process for farmers and ranchers in Missouri to challenge the enforcement of federal regulations on farming. Any farmer or rancher who believed a state or local agency helped enforce a federal rule or regulation that infringed on their right to farm could sue that state agency in state court. If the court finds in their favor, it would effectively ban any future state or local enforcement of that particular federal regulation.</p> <p>At the least, the passage of SB84 would create a chilling effect on state and local cooperation with the enforcement of federal regulations on farming and ranching. In the best-case scenario, it would stop cooperation with the enforcement of some specific federal regulations.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></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” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states. This legislation could effectively end the enforcement of some federal rules and regulations that infringe on the right to farm.</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 rest 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 – 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>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB84 was referred to the Senate Agriculture, Food Production and Outdoor Resources Committee where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/missouri-freedom-to-farm-act-takes-on-both-state-and-federal-regulations-on-farming-and-ranching/">Missouri Freedom to Farm Act Takes on both State and Federal Regulations on Farming and Ranching</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Food Freedom State Bills farming food freedom Missouri Ranching SB84 Mike Maharrey Centralizing Power Is a Threat to Your Liberty https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/centralizing-power-is-a-threat-to-your-liberty/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3d2cff2b-f316-2fca-cbee-e3e0ccee5723 Tue, 24 Jan 2023 20:31:19 +0000 <p>This should be obvious by now. Centralizing power in Washington D.C. is dangerous to your liberty.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/centralizing-power-is-a-threat-to-your-liberty/">Centralizing Power Is a Threat to Your Liberty</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>This should be obvious by now. Centralizing power in Washington D.C. is dangerous to your liberty.</p> <p>The founding generation called it consolidation and it was one of their biggest fears.</p> <p>Their warning about consolidation turned out to be prophetic.</p> <blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnnEZ_6jc6H/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"> <div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnnEZ_6jc6H/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> </p> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div> </div> <p></a></p> <p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnnEZ_6jc6H/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Tenth Amendment Center (@tenthamendmentcenter)</a></p> </div> </blockquote> <p> <script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script></p> <p><strong>For More Information</strong></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/destroyer-of-liberty-consolidation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Destroyer of Liberty: Consolidation</a></p> <p><a href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s34.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/this-country-is-too-big-for-d-c/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">This Country Is too Big for D.C.</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/05/why-federalism-a-warning-from-thomas-jefferson/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Why Federalism: A Warning from Thomas Jefferson</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/2023/01/centralizing-power-is-a-threat-to-your-liberty/">Centralizing Power Is a Threat to Your Liberty</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Big Government Maharrey Minute Centralization Consolidation founding principle Liberty Mike Maharrey Mississippi Bill Would Take Step Toward Treating Gold and Silver as Money https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/mississippi-bill-would-take-step-toward-treating-gold-and-silver-as-money-4/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:89254ed5-8de0-4c1c-5de4-7fc58ad2dc1e Tue, 24 Jan 2023 20:31:00 +0000 <p>The legislation would exempt from sales tax the sales of platinum, gold, and silver bullion that are valued solely upon their precious metal content, whether in coin or ingot form.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/mississippi-bill-would-take-step-toward-treating-gold-and-silver-as-money-4/">Mississippi Bill Would Take Step Toward Treating Gold and Silver as Money</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>JACKSON</strong>, Miss. (Jan. 24, 2023) – A bill filed in the Mississippi Senate would make a sales tax exemption on the sale of gold and silver bullion and coins. Passage into law would relieve some of the tax burdens on investors, and would also eliminate one barrier to using gold and silver in everyday transactions, a foundational step for people to undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.<span id="more-40703"></span></p> <p>Sen. Jeff Tate (R) introduced Senate Bill 2708 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MS/bill/SB2708/2023">SB2708</a>) on January 16. The legislation would exempt from sales tax the sales of platinum, gold, and silver bullion that are valued solely upon their precious metal content, whether in coin or ingot form.</p> <p>This bill is similar to two other bills <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/mississippi-bill-would-take-step-toward-treating-gold-and-silver-as-money-3/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB2019</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/mississippi-bill-would-take-step-toward-treating-gold-and-silver-as-money-2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB23</a> that would also repeal the sales tax on gold and silver.</p> <p><strong>KNOCKING DOWN BARRIERS</strong></p> <p>Currently, 42 states have eliminated sales taxes on gold and silver bullion. Repealing sales taxes on precious metal bullion takes a step toward treating gold and silver as money instead of commodities. Taxes on precious metal bullion erect barriers to using gold and silver as money by raising transaction costs. As <a href="https://www.soundmoneydefense.org/">Sound Money Defense League</a> policy director Jp Cortez testified during a committee hearing on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/wyoming-legal-tender-act-treats-gold-and-silver-as-money-foundation-to-undermine-the-federal-reserve/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a similar bill in Wyoming</a> in 2018, charging taxes on <em>money itself</em> is beyond the pale.</p> <blockquote><p>“In effect, states that collect taxes on purchases of precious metals are inherently saying gold and silver are not money at all.”</p></blockquote> <p>Imagine if you asked a grocery clerk to break a $5 bill and he charged you a 35-cent tax. Silly, right? After all, you were only exchanging one form of money for another. But that’s essentially what Mississippi’s sales tax on gold and silver bullion does. By eliminating this tax on the exchange of gold and silver, Mississippi would treat specie as money instead of a commodity. This represents a small step toward reestablishing gold and silver as legal tender and breaking down the Fed’s monopoly on money.</p> <p>“We ought not to tax money – and that’s a good idea. It makes no sense to tax money,” former U.S. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/03/ron-paul-testimony-in-support-of-arizona-sound-money-bill-hb2014/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rep. Ron Paul said during testimony in support an Arizona bill</a> that repealed capital gains taxes on gold and silver in that state. “Paper is not money, it’s fraud,” he continued.</p> <p>The impact of enacting this legislation will go beyond mere tax policy. During <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/03/ron-paul-standing-on-the-right-side-of-history/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an event after his Senate committee testimony</a>, Paul pointed out that it’s really about the size and scope of government.</p> <blockquote><p>“If you’re for less government, you want sound money. The people who want big government, they don’t want sound money. They want to deceive you and commit fraud. They want to print the money. They want a monopoly. They want to get you conditioned, as our schools have conditioned us, to the point where deficits don’t matter.”</p></blockquote> <p>Practically speaking, eliminating taxes on the sale of gold and silver cracks open the door for people to begin using specie in regular business transactions. This marks an important small step toward currency competition.</p> <p>The effect has been most dramatic in Utah where <a href="https://upma.org/">United Precious Metals Association</a> (UMPA) was established after the passage of the Utah Specie Legal Tender Act and the elimination of all taxes on gold and silver. UPMA offers accounts denominated in U.S.-minted gold and silver dollars. The company also recently released the “Utah Goldback.” UPMA describes it as “the first local, voluntary currency to be made of a spendable, beautiful, physical gold.”</p> <p><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></p> <p>The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Currently, all debts and taxes in Mississippi are either paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) which were authorized as legal tender by Congress or with coins issued by the U.S. Treasury — very few of which have gold or silver in them.</p> <p>The Federal Reserve destroys this constitutional monetary system by creating a monopoly based on its fiat currency. Without the backing of gold or silver, the central bank can easily create money out of thin air. This not only devalues your purchasing power over time; it also allows the federal government to borrow and spend far beyond what would be possible in a sound money system. Without the Fed, the U.S. government wouldn’t be able to maintain all of its unconstitutional wars and programs. <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/17/the-federal-reserve-the-engine-that-powers-the-most-powerful-government-in-history/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Federal Reserve is the engine that drives the most powerful government in the history of the world</a>.</p> <p>The passage of SB2708 would remove one of the tax barriers that hinder the use of gold and silver as money in Mississippi.</p> <p>Repealing taxes on gold and silver also takes the first step in the process of abolishing the Federal Reserve system by attacking it from the bottom up – pulling the rug out from under it by working to make its functions irrelevant at the state and local levels, and setting the stage to undermine the Federal Reserve monopoly by introducing competition into the monetary system.</p> <p>In <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/04/04/ending-the-federal-reserve-from-the-bottom-up/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a paper</a> presented at the Mises Institute, Constitutional tender expert Professor William Greene said when people in multiple states actually start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve Notes, it would effectively nullify the Federal Reserve and end the federal government’s monopoly on money.</p> <blockquote><p>“Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state – as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions.”</p></blockquote> <p>Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people. Nullifying the Fed on a state-by-state level is what will get us there.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB2708 has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee. It must be scheduled for a hearing and pass committee with a majority vote in order to continue on 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/2023/01/mississippi-bill-would-take-step-toward-treating-gold-and-silver-as-money-4/">Mississippi Bill Would Take Step Toward Treating Gold and Silver as Money</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Federal Reserve State Bills Gold Mississippi sales tax SB2708 Silver Sound Money Alan Mosley North Dakota Bill Would Expand Raw Milk Sales in the State https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/north-dakota-bill-would-expand-raw-milk-sales-in-the-state/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:873a8356-4fff-029c-20e5-7de929567b7f Tue, 24 Jan 2023 17:30:58 +0000 <p>A bill filed in the North Dakota House would expand on the limited raw milk legalization in the state. Passage would take a step toward nullifying a federal prohibition scheme in effect.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/north-dakota-bill-would-expand-raw-milk-sales-in-the-state/">North Dakota Bill Would Expand Raw Milk Sales in the State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>BISMARCK</strong>, N.D. (Jan. 24, 2023) – A bill filed in the North Dakota House would expand on the limited raw milk legalization in the state. Passage would take a step toward nullifying a federal prohibition scheme in effect.<span id="more-40799"></span></p> <p>A bipartisan group of 11 legislators led by Rep. Dawson Holle (R) filed House Bill 1515 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/ND/bill/HB1515/2023">HB1515</a>) on Jan 18. The legislation would legalize the sale of raw milk by North Dakota dairy farms with a &#8220;grade A permit&#8221; directly to consumers for personal consumption. Such sales would be required to take place at the location of the dairy farm and be restricted to individual consumers &#8211; sales to wholesalers and retail stores would remain prohibited.</p> <p>Under <a href="https://getrawmilk.com/raw-milk-laws/north-dakota" target="_blank" rel="noopener">current law</a>, raw milk is only available in North Dakota through herd-share programs.</p> <p>Enactment of this legislation would not only take a step toward opening up the raw milk market in North Dakota; it would also move forward efforts to nullify a federal raw milk prohibition scheme in practice and effect.</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, but 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 a 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>HB1515 has been referred to the <a href="https://legiscan.com/ND/pending/house-agriculture-committee/id/4618">House Agriculture Committee</a>. It must get a hearing and pass the 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/2023/01/north-dakota-bill-would-expand-raw-milk-sales-in-the-state/">North Dakota Bill Would Expand Raw Milk Sales in the State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Raw Milk State Bills FDA food freedom HB1515 North Dakota unpasteurized milk Alan Mosley South Carolina Bill Would Legalize Medical Marijuana, Ban State Enforcement of Some Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/south-carolina-bill-would-legalize-medical-marijuana-ban-state-enforcement-of-some-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:bb07063e-89bb-da4e-a5c8-7e5dd1c54930 Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:38:56 +0000 <p>A bill introduced in the South Carolina Senate would legalize medical marijuana in the state despite ongoing federal cannabis prohibition. The bill would also prohibit some state cooperation with the enforcement federal acts that criminalize the use of marijuana authorized in South Carolina.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/south-carolina-bill-would-legalize-medical-marijuana-ban-state-enforcement-of-some-federal-prohibition/">South Carolina Bill Would Legalize Medical Marijuana, Ban State Enforcement of Some Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>COLUMBIA</strong>, S.C. (Jan. 24, 2023) – A bill introduced in the South Carolina Senate would legalize medical marijuana in the state despite ongoing federal cannabis prohibition. The bill would also prohibit some state cooperation with the enforcement federal acts that criminalize the use of marijuana authorized in South Carolina.<span id="more-40795"></span></p> <p>Sen. Thomas Davis (R) and Bradley Hutto (D) introduced Senate Bill 423 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/SC/bill/S0423/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">S423</a>) on January 19. The legislation would legalize medical marijuana for patients with serious medical conditions as determined by their physicians and create a regulatory structure for a state medical cannabis program.</p> <p>Significantly, the legislation would specifically ban any state or local agencies from directly or indirectly informing a federal agency or federal official that a person owns, possesses, purchases, or may attempt to own, possess, or purchase a firearm or ammunition while possessing or using medical cannabis or while being a qualifying patient, designated caregiver, or agent of a medical cannabis establishment.</p> <p>S423 also includes provisions prohibiting state or local enforcement of federal banking laws related to cannabis.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;A bank, savings and loan association, or credit union, licensed attorney, or certified public accountant, and all associated employees, are not subject to arrest by state or local law enforcement, prosecution or penalty under state or local law, the denial of a right or privilege for engaging in conduct authorized by this article, or professional discipline for providing advice or services related to medical cannabis establishments or applications to operate medical cannabis establishments on the basis that cannabis is illegal under federal law.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</strong></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains a 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>Legalizing medical marijuana would remove a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in South Carolina even though federal prohibition remains 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>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">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">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">Illinois followed suit i</a>n 2019. 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. In 2021, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/to-the-governor-new-york-bill-legalizes-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-new-mexico-bill-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Mexico</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/virginia-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Virginia</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/connecticut-becomes-the-18th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Connecticut</a> legalized marijuana through legislative action, and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/05/signed-as-law-rhode-island-becomes-19th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rhode Island legalized cannabis</a> for adult use in 2022. With Missouri and Maryland legalizing marijuana in November, there are now 37 states allowing cannabis for medical use, and 21 legalizing for adult recreational use.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. As Tenth Amendment Center Executive Director Michael Boldin noted, “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>S423 was referred to the Senate Committee on Medical Affairs where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/south-carolina-bill-would-legalize-medical-marijuana-ban-state-enforcement-of-some-federal-prohibition/">South Carolina Bill Would Legalize Medical Marijuana, Ban State Enforcement of Some Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills cannabis Marijuana Medical Marijuana S423 South Carolina Alan Mosley Hawaii Bills Would Reform State Asset Forfeiture Process, Opt State Out of Federal Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/hawaii-bill-would-reform-state-asset-forfeiture-process-opt-state-out-of-federal-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:70a14d34-ba1d-dc2f-85d3-d2e47bad21bb Mon, 23 Jan 2023 22:29:09 +0000 <p>The legislation would restrict asset forfeiture to felony cases and would require a criminal conviction before prosecutors could proceed with the process in most cases.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/hawaii-bill-would-reform-state-asset-forfeiture-process-opt-state-out-of-federal-program/">Hawaii Bills Would Reform State Asset Forfeiture Process, Opt State Out of Federal Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>HONOLULU</strong>, Hawaii (Jan. 23, 2023) &#8211; Two bills introduced in the Hawaii Senate would reform the state&#8217;s asset forfeiture process to require a conviction in most cases. The passage of either bill would also effectively opt the state out of a program that allows police to circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the feds.<span id="more-40826"></span></p> <p>A coalition of six Democrats introduced Senate Bill 400 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/HI/bill/SB400/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB400</a>) on Jan. 20. Sen. Karl Rhoads (D) and Sen. Stanley Chang (D) introduced Senate Bill 909 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/HI/bill/SB909/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB909</a>) the same day. The legislation would restrict asset forfeiture to felony cases and would require a criminal conviction before prosecutors could proceed with the process in most cases.</p> <p>The passage of either bill would effectively opt Hawaii out of a federal program that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws. 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>The proposed law would also address the “policing for profit” motive inherent in the forfeiture system by directing all forfeiture proceeds to be transferred to the general fund after the payment of expenses incurred during the forfeiture process. Under current law, 25 percent of forfeiture funds go to police agencies, 25 percent to prosecuting attorneys, and 50 percent go to the attorney general.</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>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<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. Through this process, state or local police hand the forfeiture case to the feds to prosecute even though there was initially no federal involvement in the investigation and seizure. State and local police can also tap into equitable sharing by working with the feds on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/state-federal-task-forces-and-the-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">joint task forces</a>. About 85 percent of equitable sharing cases arise from these joint task forces, but a significant number also begin with adoption.</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>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>SB400 and SB909 both directly address the federal equitable sharing program with the following language:</p> <blockquote><p>Notwithstanding the provisions of section 712A-7,a seizing agency or prosecuting attorney shall not enter into an agreement to transfer or refer property seized under section 712A-6, unless the seized property includes United States currency in excess of $100,000, to a federal agency directly, indirectly, through adoption, through an intergovernmental joint task force or by other means that circumvent the provisions of this section.</p></blockquote> <p>The vast majority of cases far fall below that $100K threshold.</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>At the time of this report, SB400 and SB909 had not been referred to a Senate committee. Once it receives a committee assignment, it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/hawaii-bill-would-reform-state-asset-forfeiture-process-opt-state-out-of-federal-program/">Hawaii Bills Would Reform State Asset Forfeiture Process, Opt State Out of Federal Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing Hawaii Policing for Profit SB400 SB909 Mike Maharrey Three States Have Set the Stage to Nullify New ATF Gun Control Rule https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/three-states-have-set-the-stage-to-nullify-new-atf-gun-control-rule/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:30b7981b-3663-e434-28bc-1f11c3d348de Mon, 23 Jan 2023 20:30:46 +0000 <p>three states are already following James Madison’s advice on this - from federalist #46 - "a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union.”</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/three-states-have-set-the-stage-to-nullify-new-atf-gun-control-rule/">Three States Have Set the Stage to Nullify New ATF Gun Control Rule</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>The ATF just published its latest gun control regulation &#8211; this time on pistol braces.</p> <p>But three states are already following James Madison’s advice on this &#8211; from federalist #46 &#8211; &#8220;a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union.”<span id="more-40732"></span></p> <blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnhmAMQD16V/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"> <div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnhmAMQD16V/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> </p> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div> </div> <p></a></p> <p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnhmAMQD16V/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Tenth Amendment Center (@tenthamendmentcenter)</a></p> </div> </blockquote> <p> <script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script></p> <p><strong>For More Information</strong></p> <p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Federalist #46</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/07/the-blueprint-james-madisons-advice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Madison&#8217;s Blueprint</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/07/final-atf-rule-on-pistol-braces-expected-in-december/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pistol Brace Rule Explained</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/signed-by-the-governor-missouri-2nd-amendment-preservation-act-now-in-effect/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Missouri SAPA</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/09/now-in-effect-arizona-bans-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Arizona SAPA</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-montana-prohibits-state-enforcement-of-any-new-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Montana Law</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/2023/01/three-states-have-set-the-stage-to-nullify-new-atf-gun-control-rule/">Three States Have Set the Stage to Nullify New ATF Gun Control Rule</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute Right to Keep and Bear Arms 2A preservation act ATF Federal Gun Control Nullification pistol brace SAPA Mike Maharrey North Dakota Measure Would Put Electronic Communications and Data Privacy Amendment on the Ballot https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/north-dakota-measure-would-put-electronic-communications-and-data-privacy-amendment-on-the-ballot/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3db00bdf-96a8-4746-fa66-31e456078961 Mon, 23 Jan 2023 20:24:47 +0000 <p>A resolution filed in the North Dakota Senate would put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot to elevate the privacy of a person’s electronic communications and data to the same level as “persons, houses, papers and possessions.”</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/north-dakota-measure-would-put-electronic-communications-and-data-privacy-amendment-on-the-ballot/">North Dakota Measure Would Put Electronic Communications and Data Privacy Amendment on the Ballot</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>BISMARCK</strong>, N.D. (Jan. 23, 2023) – A resolution filed in the North Dakota Senate would put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot to elevate the privacy of a person’s electronic communications and data to the same level as “persons, houses, papers and possessions.”<span id="more-40796"></span></p> <p>A coalition of six Republicans filed Senate Concurrent Resolution 4006 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/ND/bill/SCR4006/2023">SCR4006</a>) on January 12.  If approved, the resolution would allow voters to consider an amendment to the <a href="https://www.ndcourts.gov/legal-resources/nd-constitution">North Dakota State Constitution</a> that would add the following highlighted words to Art. 1 Sec. 8.</p> <blockquote><p>“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, <strong>electronic data and electronic communications</strong>, and effects against unreasonable searches or seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing as may be the place to be searched, the persons and things to be seized, and the electronic data or communication to be accessed.”</p></blockquote> <p>Language in the Amendment was modeled on <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Electronic_Data_Protection,_Amendment_9_%28August_2014%29" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Missouri Amendment 9</a>, which passed with an overwhelming 75 percent of the vote in 2014. Similar amendments have passed in <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/11/montana-voters-approve-constitutional-amendment-to-treat-electronic-data-as-persons-houses-papers-and-possessions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Montana</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/michigan-voters-approve-electronic-communications-and-data-privacy-amendment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michigan</a>, and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/new-hampshire-privacy-amendment-passes-by-huge-margin/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Hampshire</a>.</p> <p>As the ACLU pointed out in <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/election-day-voters-new-hampshire-can-protect" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an article supporting the New Hampshire amendment</a>, without protections explicitly enshrined in the state constitution, the right to electronic data privacy exists at the whims of state legislators.</p> <blockquote><p>“Without state constitutional protections, privacy is not the … default setting. Rather, it needs to be repeatedly established, protected, and defended by the state legislature each time a new surveillance technology or method is established, which is a common occurrence in our modern technological world. State legislators should not play an endless game of Whack-A-Mole against threats to their residents’ privacy. Relying exclusively on piecemeal statutes or search and seizure provisions written before the dawn of the internet is no way … to protect privacy.”</p></blockquote> <p>Practically speaking inclusion of electronic communications and data in the state’s constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures means state and local police in North Dakota would be required to obtain a judicial warrant, supported by probable cause, before accessing cell phones and other electronic devices regardless of any legislative statute. It would also set the foundation to help prevent law enforcement from accessing private information through third parties.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE</strong></p> <p>While a state constitutional amendment only binds state agencies and not the federal government, the amendment would also set the foundation to help protect North Dakotans from the ever-growing federal surveillance state.</p> <p>The passage of the amendment would create the legal framework to limit state and local surveillance and minimize the amount of personal information collected and stored by state and local governments. By doing so, it would also impact federal surveillance programs that depend on state and local support.</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.</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>In practice, local data collection using ALPRs, stingrays, drones and other spy technologies create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans, and obtain and store information on millions of Americans, including phone calls, emails, web browsing history and text messages, all with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local assistance, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. When the state limits surveillance and data collection, it means less information the feds can tap into. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.</p> <p><strong>PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION</strong></p> <p>By including access to “electronic communications and data” under the same warrant requirements – describing them, probable cause, and supported by oath or affirmation – as “person, houses, papers, and possessions,” it would make such data gathered by federal agencies such as the NSA or FBI and shared with state and local law enforcement more likely to be inadmissible in state criminal proceedings. This protection will remain in place for North Dakotans even if federal courts ultimately put the seal of approval on warrantless data collection by the NSA and other federal agencies.</p> <p><em>Reuters</em> <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">revealed</a> the extent of such NSA data sharing with state and local law enforcement in an August 2013 article. According to documents obtained by the news agency, the NSA passes information to police through a formerly secret DEA unit known as the Special Operations Divisions and the cases “rarely involve national security issues.” Almost all of the information involves regular criminal investigations, not terror-related investigations.</p> <p>In other words, not only does the NSA collect and store this data, using it to build profiles, the agency encourages state and local law enforcement to violate the Fourth Amendment by making use of this information in their day-to-day investigations.</p> <p>Despite the revelations by Edward Snowden, <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/09/07/big-brother-has-hacked-the-constitution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NSA spying has continued</a>.</p> <p>This is “the most threatening situation to our constitutional republic since the Civil War,” former NSA technical chief William Binney said.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SCR4006 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, with a hearing scheduled for Jan. 25. 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/2023/01/north-dakota-measure-would-put-electronic-communications-and-data-privacy-amendment-on-the-ballot/">North Dakota Measure Would Put Electronic Communications and Data Privacy Amendment on the Ballot</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. State Bills Surveillance electronic data North Dakota Privacy SCR4006 surveillance Alan Mosley Oklahoma Bill Would Take the First Step Toward Legalizing “Magic Mushrooms” Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/oklahoma-bill-would-take-the-first-step-toward-legalizing-magic-mushrooms-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:2dd785cb-68c5-4f86-6739-8accac704ac7 Mon, 23 Jan 2023 20:17:37 +0000 <p>The legislation would amend existing state law by allowing research facilities and universities to conduct clinical trials for psilocybin with patients over the age of 21 suffering a variety of ailments. The trials would be to determine its safety and potential therapeutic benefits. The bill also provides an affirmative defense for both researchers and patients participating in the trials in the event of arrest or prosecution. Any facilities conducting the trials would have to submit their findings to the state by December 2026.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/oklahoma-bill-would-take-the-first-step-toward-legalizing-magic-mushrooms-despite-federal-prohibition/">Oklahoma Bill Would Take the First Step Toward Legalizing “Magic Mushrooms” Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>OKLAHOMA CITY</strong>, Okla. (Jan. 23, 2023) – A bill in the Oklahoma House would legalize clinical trials for the medical use of psilocybin, setting the stage to nullify federal prohibition of the same in practice and effect.<span id="more-40791"></span></p> <p>Rep. Daniel Pae (R) prefiled House Bill 2107 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/HB2107/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2107</a>) on Jan. 11. The legislation would amend existing state law by allowing research facilities and universities to conduct clinical trials for psilocybin with patients over the age of 21 suffering a variety of ailments. The trials would be to determine its safety and potential therapeutic benefits. The bill also provides an affirmative defense for both researchers and patients participating in the trials in the event of arrest or prosecution. Any facilities conducting the trials would have to submit their findings to the state by December 2026.</p> <p>Psilocybin, often referred to as “magic mushrooms,” is a hallucinogenic compound found in certain mushrooms. A number of studies have shown psilocybin to be effective in the treatment of depression, PTSD, chronic pain and addiction. For instance, <a href="https://maps.org/other-psychedelic-research/211-psilocybin-research/psilocybin-studies-in-progress/1268-johns_hopkins_study_of_psilocybin_in_cancer_patients">a Johns Hopkins study</a> found that “psilocybin produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer.”</p> <p>Efforts to legalize psilocybin in Oklahoma State follow <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/oregon-votes-to-decriminalize-cocaine-heroin-and-other-hard-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/">a successful ballot measure that decriminalized a number of drugs, including heroin and cocaine in Oregon</a>. In 2022, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/11/colorado-voters-decriminalize-magic-mushrooms-despite-federal-prohibition/">Colorado voters passed a ballot measure</a> decriminalizing several naturally occurring psychedelic substances. At least 14 cities including <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/11/detroit-voters-approve-measure-to-decriminalize-magic-mushrooms-despite-federal-prohibition/">Detroit, Michigan</a> have decriminalized “magic mushrooms.”</p> <p>Psychedelic decriminalization and legalization efforts at the state and local levels are moving forward despite the federal government’s prohibition of psilocybin and other psychedelic substances.</p> <p><strong>LEGALITY</strong></p> <p>Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains the complete prohibition of psilocybin. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate such substances 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>In effect, the passage of HB2107 would be the first step toward ending criminal enforcement of laws prohibiting the possession of psilocybin in Oklahoma. As we’ve seen with marijuana and hemp, when states and localities stop enforcing laws banning a substance, the federal government finds it virtually impossible to maintain prohibition. For instance, FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By curtailing or ending state prohibition, states sweep part 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 and local assistance, and the same will likely hold true with other drugs.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>The 2023 legislative session in Oklahoma begins on Feb. 6. Once HB2107 is officially introduced, it will be referred to a committee where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/oklahoma-bill-would-take-the-first-step-toward-legalizing-magic-mushrooms-despite-federal-prohibition/">Oklahoma Bill Would Take the First Step Toward Legalizing “Magic Mushrooms” Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War Health Care State Bills HB2107 magic mushrooms Oklahoma psilocybin TJ Martinell Oklahoma Bill Would Create State Bullion Depository https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/oklahoma-bill-would-create-bullion-depository/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:07864c48-d01e-3a58-4630-f2468338e91d Mon, 23 Jan 2023 20:09:35 +0000 <p>A bill filed in the Oklahoma Senate would establish a state bullion depository. This would not only create a safe place to store precious metals; it also has the potential to facilitate the everyday use of gold and silver in financial transactions in Oklahoma and set the stage to undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/oklahoma-bill-would-create-bullion-depository/">Oklahoma Bill Would Create State Bullion Depository</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>OKLAHOMA CITY</strong>, Okla. (Jan. 23, 2023) – A bill filed in the Oklahoma Senate would establish a state bullion depository. This would not only create a safe place to store precious metals; it also has the potential to facilitate the everyday use of gold and silver in financial transactions in Oklahoma and set the stage to undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.<span id="more-40794"></span></p> <p>Sen. Nathan Dahm (R) filed Senate Bill 816 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/SB816/2023">SB816</a>). The legislation would create the Oklahoma Bullion Depository in the Office of the State Treasurer. The depository would serve as “the custodian, guardian and administrator of gold, silver and other precious metals transferred or acquired by the state, or an agency, political subdivision or other instrumentality of the state.” The depository would also accept deposits of gold and silver by private individuals.</p> <p>Significantly SB816 would establish a mechanism for individuals to engage in transactions using precious metals including gold and silver.</p> <blockquote><p><em>“In accordance with the rules promulgated under this act, a depository account holder may transfer any portion of the balance of the holder’s depository account by check, draft, or digital electronic instruction to another depository account holder or to a person who at the time the transfer is initiated is not a depository account holder.”</em></p></blockquote> <p>The legislation creates a regulatory structure for the depository and all transactions facilitated through it. It also establishes criteria for depository agents.</p> <p>The bill is based on a similar law that was <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/06/signed-by-the-governor-texas-law-establishes-bullion-depository-helps-facilitate-transactions-in-gold-and-silver/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed in Texas and signed into law by Gov. Abbott </a>in 2015. The Texas depository <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/06/07/texas-bullion-depository-open-for-business/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">received its first deposits in the summer of 2018</a>. The following year, the state exempted precious metals in these depositories from taxation.</p> <p>A similar bill was introduced by Dahm in 2022, but never made it out of committee.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT</strong></p> <p>In a nutshell, through the depository, Oklahomans would eventually be able to deposit gold or silver and pay other people through electronic means or checks. Private individuals and entities would be able to purchase goods and services using assets in the vault in the same way they use cash today. Doing so has the potential to open the market to sound money in day-to-day transactions. Ultimately, depositors will be able to use a bullion-funded debit card that seamlessly converts gold and silver to fiat currency in the background. This will enable them to make instant purchases wherever credit and debit cards are accepted.</p> <p>By making gold and silver available for regular, daily transactions by the general public, a depository has the potential for a wide-reaching effect. Professor William Greene is an expert on constitutional tender and said in <a href="https://mises.org/wire/ending-federal-reserve-bottom" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a paper for the Mises Institute</a> that when people in multiple states actually start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve notes, it would effectively nullify the Federal Reserve and end the federal government’s monopoly on money.</p> <blockquote><p>“Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a ‘reverse Gresham’s Law’ effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes).</p> <p>“As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state – as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions.”</p></blockquote> <p>Gresham’s Law holds that “bad money drives out good.”  For example, when the U.S. government replaced silver quarters and dimes with coins made primarily of less valuable copper, the cheap coins drove the silver out of circulation. People hoarded the more valuable silver coins and spent the less valuable copper money. So, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/reversing-gresham-good-money-can-drive-out-bad/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">how do you reverse Gresham</a>?</p> <p>The key is in making it easier to use gold and silver in everyday transactions. The reason bad money drives out good is that governments put up barriers to using sound money in day-to-day life. That makes it more costly to spend gold and silver and incentivizes hoarding. When you remove barriers, you level the playing field and allow gold and silver to compete head-to-head with Federal Reserve notes. On an even playing field, gold and silver beat fiat money every time.</p> <p>The Oklahoma Bullion Depository would also create an avenue toward financial independence. Countries around the world, including China, Russia and Turkey, <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/axis-of-gold-countries-could-undermine-dollar-dominance-using-yellow-metal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">have been buying gold</a> to limit their dependence on the U.S. dollar. In a discussion about the Texas Bullion Depository, University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus said a state depository can serve a similar function.</p> <blockquote><p>“This is another in a long line of ways to make Texas more self-reliant and less tethered to the federal government. The financial impact is small but the political impact is telling, Many conservatives are interested in returning to the gold standard and circumvent the Federal reserve in whatever small way they can.”</p></blockquote> <p>In most states, debts and taxes must either get paid with Federal Reserve Notes (dollars), authorized as legal tender by Congress or with coins issued by the U.S. Treasury — very few of which have gold or silver in them.</p> <p>The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”</p> <p>The creation of an Oklahoma Gold Depository would take another step toward that constitutional requirement, ignored for decades in every state. Such a tactic would undermine the monopoly of the Federal Reserve System by introducing competition into the monetary system.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>At the time of this report, SB816 had not been referred to a committee. Once it receives a committee assignment, it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/oklahoma-bill-would-create-bullion-depository/">Oklahoma Bill Would Create State Bullion Depository</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Federal Reserve State Bills bullion depository Constitutional Tender Gold Oklahoma SB816 Silver Sound Money Alan Mosley Minnesota Bill Would Ban Police From Denying Firearms to Medical Marijuana Users https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/minnesota-bill-would-ban-police-from-denying-firearms-to-medical-marijuana-users/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:cb03c3d8-92be-81ef-e67b-281d04f71627 Mon, 23 Jan 2023 19:37:52 +0000 <p>Under the proposed law, a person could not be denied the right to purchase, own, possess, or carry a firearm solely on the basis that the person is a qualifying patient in the state's medical marijuana program.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/minnesota-bill-would-ban-police-from-denying-firearms-to-medical-marijuana-users/">Minnesota Bill Would Ban Police From Denying Firearms to Medical Marijuana Users</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><b>ST. PAUL,</b> Minn. (Jan. 23, 2023) – A bill introduced in the Minnesota Senate would prohibit Minnesota sheriffs from denying applications for gun carry permits solely based on a person&#8217;s enrollment in the medical cannabis registry.<span id="more-40793"></span></p> <p>Sen. Mark Koranh, Jeff Howe, and Bill Lieske introduced Senate Bill 89 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MN/bill/SF89/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SF89</a>) on Jan. 10. Under the proposed law, a person could not be denied the right to purchase, own, possess, or carry a firearm solely on the basis that the person is a qualifying patient in the state&#8217;s medical marijuana program.</p> <p>State and local agencies would also be prohibited from inquiring about a person&#8217;s status as a qualifying patient or accessing a database containing the identities of qualifying patients or obtain information for the purpose of approving or disapproving a person from purchasing, owning, possessing, or carrying a firearm.</p> <p>As <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/03/states-need-to-step-up-and-protect-medical-marijuana-users-from-federal-gun-laws/">Suzanne Sherman noted in an article for the Tenth Amendment Center</a>, the federal government has long claimed the power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms of medical marijuana patients:</p> <blockquote><p>If you purchase a firearm from an FFL, you will be presented with the Firearms Transaction Record form 4473, which you must, under penalty of perjury, answer fully and truthfully. You may see it for yourself <a href="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HERE</a>.</p> <p>Question 11(c) asks prospective gun purchasers if they are unlawfully using any controlled substances. You think, “Hey, I can answer ‘no,’ as marijuana is now legal in my state. Immediately following the inquiry is the following admonition (in bold letters):</p> <p>“<strong>Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law, regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.</strong>”</p> <p>Not surprisingly, in 2016, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of appeals ruled that this restriction does not violate the Second Amendment.</p></blockquote> <p>Most states have adopted this federal ban on owning firearms for medical marijuana users, or simply help in its enforcement. In Hawaii, for example, police sent letters to medical marijuana patients who owned guns telling them they had <a href="http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/11/28/breaking-news/honolulu-police-tell-legal-marijuana-users-to-turn-in-their-firearms/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">30 days to surrender their weapons</a>.</p> <p>While the passage of SF89 wouldn’t overturn the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, it would end state and local enforcement of one aspect of that unconstitutional act in Minnesota. And as we’ve seen so prominently in immigration sanctuary cities and states with marijuana legalization, when state and local enforcement ends, the federal government has an extremely difficult time enforcing their acts.</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/07/the-blueprint-james-madisons-advice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in <em>Federalist #46</em></a>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” offers an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states. 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>In 2018, Utah became the first state to pass legislation to help make federal gun bans for medical marijuana patients “nearly impossible” to enforce. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/signed-by-the-governor-utah-law-implements-medical-marijuana-bans-resources-for-some-federal-enforcement/">law prohibits</a> expending any state or local resources, including an officer’s time, to “enforce a law that restricts an individual’s right to acquire, own, or possess a firearm based solely on the individual’s possession or use of cannabis in accordance with state medical cannabis laws.”</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SF89 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/minnesota-bill-would-ban-police-from-denying-firearms-to-medical-marijuana-users/">Minnesota Bill Would Ban Police From Denying Firearms to Medical Marijuana Users</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills cannabis firearms Marijuana Alan Mosley Founding Tenther: John Hancock https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/founding-tenther-john-hancock/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:cda02c1a-d5e5-aa6c-3b6d-2a965be09ae9 Mon, 23 Jan 2023 19:02:23 +0000 <p>Born Jan 23, 1737 - John Hancock was one of the most influential and important Revolutionaries, from the Stamp and Townshend Acts, through the Boston Massacre and the War for Independence. But he was also one of the leading advocates of what became the 10th Amendment.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/founding-tenther-john-hancock/">Founding Tenther: John Hancock</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Born Jan 23, 1737 &#8211; John Hancock was one of the most influential and important Revolutionaries, from the Stamp and Townshend Acts, through the Boston Massacre and the War for Independence. But he was also one of the leading advocates of what became the 10th Amendment.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: Jan 23, 2023<span id="more-40805"></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/wLjZse2fQMk?start=73" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" 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://digital.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-amarch%3A89683" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Gen. Gage’s Offer of Amnesty (12 June 1775)</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Causes_and_Necessity_of_Taking_Up_Arms" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms</a> </p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5370" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Adams &#8211; Letter to Joseph Ward (6 June 1809)</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock#Townshend_Acts_crisis" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Townshend Acts of 1767</a></p> <p><a href="https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/the-liberty-affair-john-hancock-loses-a-ship-and-starts-a-riot/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The Liberty Affair</a></p> <p><a href="https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/08/john-adams-won-hancock-trial/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">How John Adams won the Hancock trial</a></p> <p><a href="https://ahp.gatech.edu/boston_mass_orat_1774.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Massacre Day Oration (5 Mar 1774)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/remembering-boston-massacre-day-john-hancock-edition/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Episode &#8211; Hancock&#8217;s Massacre Day Oration</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.masshist.org/publications/adams-papers/index.php/view/DJA02d104" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Adams &#8211; Diary of March 5, 1774</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/11/18/rhetoric-and-resistance-in-the-face-of-tyranny/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Rhetoric and Resistance in the Face of Tyranny</a></p> <p><a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/massachusetts-ratifying-convention-proposed-amendments/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Massachusetts Amendments (6 Feb 1788)</a></p> <p><a href="https://shop.tenthamendmentcenter.com/product/ratification-the-people-debate-the-constitution-1787-1788/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Pauline Maier’s book</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/elliot-the-debates-in-the-several-state-conventions-vol-2" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Hancock &#8211; Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (6 Feb 1788)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/jefferson-the-works-vol-5-correspondence-1786-1789#lf0054-05_head_105" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson &#8211; Letter to Edward Carrington (27 May 1788)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/jefferson-the-works-vol-5-correspondence-1786-1789#lf0054-05_head_120" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson &#8211; Letter to Francis Hopkinson (13 Mar 1789)</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-012323:c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://rumble.com/v26ongg-founding-tenther-john-hancock.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Rumble</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1617575120176025603" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://sovren.media/video/asset-forfeiture-is-theft-nmn-ep-3-2394.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Sovren</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1464331307059253251" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/founding-tenther-john-hancock-63ced7b7e548661555d9b8c3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/5170f469-4d57-4702-a8bf-31be25d0d43b" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/ieAquLI9Ee/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/XRK0ye8cR8aS/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7022982146214547456" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</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></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/2023/01/founding-tenther-john-hancock/">Founding Tenther: John Hancock</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video History John Hancock Path to Liberty 10th Amendment American Revolution Today in History Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 35:56 Born Jan 23, 1737 - John Hancock was one of the most influential and important Revolutionaries, from the Stamp and Townshend Acts, through the Boston Massacre and the War for Independence. But he was also one of the leading advocates of what became the... Born Jan 23, 1737 - John Hancock was one of the most influential and important Revolutionaries, from the Stamp and Townshend Acts, through the Boston Massacre and the War for Independence. But he was also one of the leading advocates of what became the 10th Amendment. A Dirty Little Secret the Feds Don’t Want You to Know https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/a-dirty-little-secret-the-feds-dont-want-you-to-know/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:42060702-4cff-5ec0-0908-db62dbf86cdb Sun, 22 Jan 2023 20:31:45 +0000 <p>Partnerships don't work when half the team quits.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/a-dirty-little-secret-the-feds-dont-want-you-to-know/">A Dirty Little Secret the Feds Don’t Want You to Know</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Partnerships don&#8217;t work when half the team quits.</p> <p>That&#8217;s a big problem for the feds. They depend on state and local &#8220;partners&#8221; to do pretty much everything.</p> <p>That&#8217;s why James Madison&#8217;s blueprint to stop federal actions works.</p> <blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnUz53rjH08/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"> <div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnUz53rjH08/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> </p> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div> </div> <p></a></p> <p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CnUz53rjH08/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Tenth Amendment Center (@tenthamendmentcenter)</a></p> </div> </blockquote> <p> <script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script></p> <p><strong>For More Information</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/07/the-blueprint-james-madisons-advice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Blueprint: James Madison&#8217;s Advice</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/09/09/the-feds-need-the-states-to-do-almost-everything/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Feds Need States to do Almost Everything</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/12/16/federalist-16-the-seeds-of-nullification/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Federalist 16: The Seeds of Nullification</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/2023/01/a-dirty-little-secret-the-feds-dont-want-you-to-know/">A Dirty Little Secret the Feds Don’t Want You to Know</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute Strategy Anticommandeering Big Government James Madison Nullification Mike Maharrey Missouri Bill Would Partially Opt State Out of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/missouri-bill-would-partially-opt-state-out-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:2edb02fe-5787-bad0-d052-f8bd56eb66a4 Fri, 20 Jan 2023 19:20:08 +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 for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under federal law.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/missouri-bill-would-partially-opt-state-out-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/">Missouri Bill Would Partially Opt State Out of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (Jan. 20, 2023) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Missouri House would partially opt the state out of a program that allows police to circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the feds.<span id="more-40778"></span></p> <p>Rep. Tony Lovasco (R) introduced House Bill 868 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/HB868/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB868</a>) on Jan. 18. 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 for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under federal law.</p> <p>In effect, HB868 would partially 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>The equitable sharing program allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. Through this process, state or local police hand the forfeiture case to the feds to prosecute even though there was initially no federal involvement in the investigation and seizure. State and local police can also tap into equitable sharing by working with the feds on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/state-federal-task-forces-and-the-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">joint task forces</a>. The majority of equitable sharing cases arise from these joint task forces, but a significant number also begin with adoption.</p> <p>The bill includes language that would still allow state and local police to participate in equitable sharing through joint task forces.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;This subsection only applies to a seizure by a law enforcement agency under its own authority under state law and without involvement of the federal government.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>State and local police work closely with the feds in the &#8220;war on drugs,&#8221; and <a href="https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/policing-for-profit-3-web.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data compiled by the Institute for Justice (pg. 47 of their Asset Forfeiture report)</a> shows joint task forces generate 85 percent of equitable sharing cases.</p> <p>But the number of cases handed off to the feds through adoption isn&#8217;t insignificant. According to a policy analyst at the IJ, ending adoption alone would impact roughly $1 million in equitable sharing per year.</p> <p>Last year, Lovasco introduced similar legislation including provisions that would have significantly limited the ability to pass forfeiture cases to federal authority by requiring Missouri law enforcement agencies 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 seizure includes over $100,000 in U.S. currency. He was not able to get that bill to the House floor. Lovasco decided to take a more limited approach this year because the political realities in Missouri would make it highly unlikely to pass legislation limiting participation in task forces.</p> <p>While the impact would be more limited, passing HB868 and ending adoption would take the first step toward limiting Missouri&#8217;s participation in the federal forfeiture program.</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. 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 bans or limits 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>Missouri was among the states with the highest level of federal forfeiture between 2000 and 2019, <a href="https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/?state=MO" target="_blank" rel="noopener">raking in over $171 million</a> in Department of Justice equitable sharing proceeds during that time.</p> <p>Passage of HB868 would partially close the loophole and modestly 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>NECESSARY</strong></p> <p>While some people believe the Supreme Court “ended asset forfeiture,” the Supreme Court 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>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>At the time of this report, HB868 had not been referred to a committee. Once it receives a committee assignment, the bill must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/missouri-bill-would-partially-opt-state-out-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/">Missouri Bill Would Partially Opt State Out of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing HB868 Missouri Policing for Profit Mike Maharrey Iowa Bill Would Legalize Marijuana, Ban Enforcement of Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/iowa-bill-would-legalize-marijuana-ban-enforcement-of-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:9fa5d3ab-ea71-a261-6883-a2b0e3a2b01c Fri, 20 Jan 2023 18:58:15 +0000 <p>Significantly, SF73 would also restrict local and state law enforcement from enforcing federal law related to cannabis as well as providing any information or logistical support to any federal law enforcement authority.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/iowa-bill-would-legalize-marijuana-ban-enforcement-of-federal-prohibition/">Iowa Bill Would Legalize Marijuana, Ban Enforcement of Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><b>DES MOINES, </b>Iowa &#8211; (Jan. 20, 2023) – A bill filed in the Iowa Senate would legalize the adult use of marijuana despite ongoing federal cannabis prohibition.<span id="more-40705"></span></p> <p>A coalition of Democrats led by Sen. Janet Peterson (D) introduced Senate Bill 73 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/IA/bill/SF73/2023">SF73</a>) on Jan. 12. The bill would create programs to license and regulate the possession, cultivation and distribution of marijuana for personal use for adults over the age of 21.</p> <p>Significantly, SF73 would also restrict local and state law enforcement from enforcing federal law related to cannabis as well as providing any information or logistical support to any federal law enforcement authority.</p> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</strong></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains a 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>Iowa legalized medical marijuana in 2018, removing a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state even though federal prohibition remains in effect. The legalization of marijuana for adult use would wipe more state prohibition laws from the books. 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>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">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">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">Illinois followed suit i</a>n 2019. 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. In 2021, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/to-the-governor-new-york-bill-legalizes-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-new-mexico-bill-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Mexico</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/virginia-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Virginia</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/connecticut-becomes-the-18th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Connecticut</a> legalized marijuana through legislative action, and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/05/signed-as-law-rhode-island-becomes-19th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rhode Island legalized cannabis</a> for adult use in 2022. With Missouri and Maryland legalizing marijuana in November, there are now 37 states allowing cannabis for medical use, and 21 legalizing for adult recreational use.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. As Tenth Amendment Center Executive Director Michael Boldin noted, “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>SF73 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/iowa-bill-would-legalize-marijuana-ban-enforcement-of-federal-prohibition/">Iowa Bill Would Legalize Marijuana, Ban Enforcement of Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis Iowa Marijuana Marijuana Legalization SF73 Alan Mosley Asset Forfeiture is Theft https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/asset-forfeiture-is-theft/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4ee84eea-d3af-2861-cde9-567c9f1d4ddd Fri, 20 Jan 2023 17:49:32 +0000 <p>Nullification Movement News, Episode 3. This week's stories include:<br /> -5 States vs State and Fed Forfeiture<br /> -The Fiat Currency Regime<br /> -Richard Henry Lee's Warning</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/asset-forfeiture-is-theft/">Asset Forfeiture is Theft</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Nullification Movement News, Episode 3. This week&#8217;s stories include:<br /> -5 States vs State and Fed Forfeiture<br /> -The Fiat Currency Regime<br /> -Richard Henry Lee&#8217;s Warning</p> <p>Path to Liberty: Jan 20, 2023<span id="more-40786"></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/-nvwNJCaiQE" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" 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://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/03/13/equitable-sharing-40-years-of-federal-theft-through-civil-asset-forfeiture/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Equitable Sharing: 40 Years of Federal Theft through Civil Asset Forfeiture</a></p> <p><a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/jim-grant-weve-not-seen-the-last-of-this-inflationary-outburst/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jim Grant: We’ve Not Seen the Last of This Inflationary Outburst</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Letters_of_Richard_Henry_Lee/2DpLAAAAYAAJ" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Richard Henry Lee to his nephew Thomas Shippen (21 Sept 1791)</a> </p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/report/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">State of the Nullification Movement Report</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/nmn-012023:1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://rumble.com/v26fdzq-asset-forfeiture-is-theft-nmn-ep-3.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Rumble</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1616490934002384897" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://sovren.media/video/asset-forfeiture-is-theft-nmn-ep-3-2394.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Sovren</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1463224469874020358" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/asset-forfeiture-is-theft-nmn-ep-63cad143e548661555d94c69" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/04e30524-aae0-4961-8bd6-bb183816c007" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/i1kwZnTSd0/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/10rZPewww1tC/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7022255973230632960" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</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></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/2023/01/asset-forfeiture-is-theft/">Asset Forfeiture is Theft</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Asset Forfeiture Audio/Video Federal Reserve Path to Liberty Richard Henry Lee Equitable Sharing Fiat Currency Nullification Movement News Sound Money thomas jefferson Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 8:04 Nullification Movement News, Episode 3. This week's stories include: -5 States vs State and Fed Forfeiture -The Fiat Currency Regime -Richard Henry Lee's Warning Nullification Movement News, Episode 3. This week's stories include:<br /> -5 States vs State and Fed Forfeiture<br /> -The Fiat Currency Regime<br /> -Richard Henry Lee's Warning West Virginia Bill Would Ban State Enforcement of Federal Regulations on Natural Resources https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/west-virginia-bill-would-ban-state-enforcement-of-federal-regulations-on-natural-resources/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:9cbc229f-cb2d-a92b-4e55-c50e04e8b418 Fri, 20 Jan 2023 14:48:59 +0000 <p>CHARLESTON, W. Va. (Jan. 20, 2023) &#8211; A bill introduced in the West Virginia Senate would ban state cooperation with the enforcement of some federal regulations on natural resources in the state. The passage of this bill would set the stage to nullify these regulations in practice and effect. Sen. Patrick Martin (R) and Sen. [&#8230;]</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/west-virginia-bill-would-ban-state-enforcement-of-federal-regulations-on-natural-resources/">West Virginia Bill Would Ban State Enforcement of Federal Regulations on Natural Resources</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>CHARLESTON</strong>, W. Va. (Jan. 20, 2023) &#8211; A bill introduced in the West Virginia Senate would ban state cooperation with the enforcement of some federal regulations on natural resources in the state. The passage of this bill would set the stage to nullify these regulations in practice and effect.<span id="more-40775"></span></p> <p>Sen. Patrick Martin (R) and Sen. Mark Hunt (R) introduced Senate Bill 183 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/bill/SB183/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB183</a>) on Jan. 13. The legislation would ban state and local agencies and their employees from knowingly and willingly participating in any way in the enforcement of any federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation relating to coal, oil, gas, timber, or other extractive resources, or downstream industries related to such extractive resources if it does not exist under the laws of West Virginia. It would also bar the use of state funds to aid in the enforcement of the same.</p> <p>State or local employees who violate the law would be subject to civil penalties. Political subdivisions of the state in violation of the law would lose state grants the following year.</p> <p>The proposed law is similar to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/12/texas-bill-would-ban-state-enforcement-of-federal-rules-and-regulations-on-oil-and-gas-production/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a bill introduced in Texas</a> to ban state and local enforcement of federal regulations on oil and gas production.</p> <p><strong>STRATEGY</strong></p> <p>While the law wouldn’t end all federal regulations on natural resources immediately, it would represent a massive shift in strategy going forward. In effect, the bill would do the following.</p> <ol> <li>Ban state and local enforcement of any federal regulation of natural recourses on the books that doesn’t have a concurrent measure in West Virginia state law.</li> <li>Ban state and local enforcement of any new regulation of natural resources that might come from Washington D.C. in the future that isn’t on the books in West Virginia.</li> <li>Shift the focus and attention to natural resource regulation measures on the books in state law, effectively giving West Virginia complete control over the regulation of its natural resources.</li> </ol> <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 <strong>most federal programs</strong>.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of  West Virginia can legally bar state agents from enforcing EPA regulations, or any other federal law. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the 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> (1997) serves as the cornerstone. For the majority, Justice Scalia wrote, in part:</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>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB183 was referred to the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/west-virginia-bill-would-ban-state-enforcement-of-federal-regulations-on-natural-resources/">West Virginia Bill Would Ban State Enforcement of Federal Regulations on Natural Resources</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Environment State Bills EPA natural resources SB183 West Virginia Mike Maharrey Mississippi Bill Would Expand Raw Milk Sales in the State https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/mississippi-bill-would-expand-raw-milk-sales-in-the-state/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:e9a4a0eb-dc57-f2bf-718f-f7bebbd930c4 Thu, 19 Jan 2023 19:01:09 +0000 <p>Provisions in the bill would legalize the sale of raw cow and goat milk and products made from them on the farm direct to the consumer and at farmer's markets. Sellers would be required to clearly mark such products with a warning label.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/mississippi-bill-would-expand-raw-milk-sales-in-the-state/">Mississippi Bill Would Expand Raw Milk Sales in the State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>JACKSON</strong>, Miss. (Jan. 19, 2023) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Mississippi House would expand legal raw milk sales in the state. Passage into law would take an important step toward rejecting a federal prohibition scheme in practice and effect.<span id="more-40768"></span></p> <p>Rep. Dan Eubanks (R) introduced House Bill 649 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MS/bill/HB649/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB649</a>) on Jan. 16. Provisions in the bill would legalize the sale of raw cow and goat milk and products made from them on the farm direct to the consumer and at farmer&#8217;s markets. Sellers would be required to clearly mark such products with a warning label.</p> <p>Under <a href="https://realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-regulations/state/mississippi" target="_blank" rel="noopener">current Mississippi law</a>, it is only legal to sell raw goat milk directly to the consumer from farms with fewer than nine animals. HB649 would maintain the nine-goat limit but would allow raw milk to be sold from farms with an unlimited number of cows.</p> <p>HB649 also includes provisions prohibiting local governments from regulating the production and sale of agricultural or farm products on any private property.</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 a 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>HB649 was referred to the House Agriculture Committee where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/mississippi-bill-would-expand-raw-milk-sales-in-the-state/">Mississippi Bill Would Expand Raw Milk Sales in the State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Raw Milk State Bills FDA food freedom HB649 Mississippi unpasteurized milk Mike Maharrey West Virginia Bills Would Expand Medical Marijuana Program Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/west-virginia-bills-would-expand-medical-marijuana-program-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:879deab5-d4c1-2e7c-c4f8-26f2b9516262 Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:58:17 +0000 <p>The legislation would create a commercial incubator permit program. Language in the bill notes that the state medicinal cannabis program has "nullified" federal prohibition on medical marijuana.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/west-virginia-bills-would-expand-medical-marijuana-program-despite-federal-prohibition/">West Virginia Bills Would Expand Medical Marijuana Program Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>CHARLESTON</strong>, W. Va. (Jan 19, 2023) – A bill introduced in the West Virginia House of Delegates would expand the state&#8217;s medical marijuana laws in the state despite ongoing federal cannabis prohibition.<span id="more-40707"></span></p> <p>Del. Danielle Walker (D) filed House Bill 2291 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/bill/HB2291/2023">HB2291</a>) would expand the state&#8217;s medical marijuana program and remove cannabis from the state&#8217;s list of schedule 1 drugs.</p> <p>The legislation would create a commercial incubator permit program. Language in the bill notes that the state medicinal cannabis program has &#8220;nullified&#8221; federal prohibition on medical marijuana.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Medical cannabis is further recognized in this state, <strong>nullifying the federal schedule of cannabis as having no medical properties</strong>, and medical cannabis is recognized in 30 other states as having medical benefit, and West Virginia can be a leader in the development of certified seed stock for industrial hemp and medical cannabis strains and varieties, therefore a Special Business and Resident Incubator Permit program is created under the Commissioner of Agriculture to regulate what can be a vibrant industrial hemp and medical cannabis seed certification program.&#8221; [Emphasis added]</p></blockquote> <p>HB2291 would also create a seed program for medical cannabis and shield medical marijuana businesses in compliance with West Virginia law from being subject to civil asset forfeiture.</p> <p>A second bill introduced by Walker at the same time would legalize the use of marijuana by adults 21 and over. House Bill 2091 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/bill/HB2091/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2091</a>) would create a regulatory and tax scheme for retail cannabis businesses. Under the proposed law, adults could legally possess up to 1-ounce of marijuana. Cannabis would be regulated &#8220;in a manner similar to alcohol…”</p> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</strong></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains a 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>West Virginia’s medical marijuana program removes one layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, but federal prohibition remains in place. The legalization of marijuana for adult use would wipe more state prohibition laws from the books. 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>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">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">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">Illinois followed suit i</a>n 2019. 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. In 2021, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/to-the-governor-new-york-bill-legalizes-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-new-mexico-bill-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Mexico</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/virginia-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Virginia</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/connecticut-becomes-the-18th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Connecticut</a> legalized marijuana through legislative action, and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/05/signed-as-law-rhode-island-becomes-19th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rhode Island legalized cannabis</a> for adult use in 2022. With Missouri and Maryland legalizing marijuana in November, there are now 37 states allowing cannabis for medical use, and 21 legalizing for adult recreational use.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. As Tenth Amendment Center Executive Director Michael Boldin noted, “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 expansion proposed of medical marijuana laws in West Virginia demonstrates another important reality. Once a state puts laws in place legalizing cannabis, they tend to eventually expand. HB2291 serves as a perfect example of this tendency. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand expands. That creates pressure to further relax state law. This bill represents a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition. It also demonstrates an important strategic point. Passing bills that take a step forward sets the stage, even if they aren’t perfect. Opening the door clears the way for additional steps. You can’t take the second step before you take the first.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB2290 was referred to the House Health and Human Resources Committee. HB2291 has been referred to the House Agriculture &amp; Natural Resources Committee. Both bills will have to get a hearing and 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/2023/01/west-virginia-bills-would-expand-medical-marijuana-program-despite-federal-prohibition/">West Virginia Bills Would Expand Medical Marijuana Program Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis HB2091 HB2291 Marijuana West Virginia Alan Mosley Wyoming Bill Would Set Foundation to End Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/wyoming-bill-would-set-foundation-to-end-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d22aa8a7-6979-d640-2915-1eb0b43917fc Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:16:24 +0000 <p>Titled the Defend the Guard Act, the legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Wyoming National Guard into “active duty combat” unless specific constitutional requirements are met</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/wyoming-bill-would-set-foundation-to-end-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/">Wyoming Bill Would Set Foundation to End Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>CHEYENNE</strong>, Wyo. (Jan. 19, 2023) – A bill introduced in the Wyoming Senate would require the governor to stop unconstitutional foreign combat deployments of the state’s National Guard troops. Passage into law would take a big step toward restoring the founders’ framework for a state-federal balance under the Constitution.<span id="more-40760"></span></p> <p>A coalition of four Republicans introduced Senate Bill 119 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WY/bill/SF0119/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SF119</a>) on Jan. 17. Titled the <em>Defend the Guard Act</em>, the legislation would prohibit the governor from releasing any unit or member of the Wyoming National Guard into “active duty combat” unless specific constitutional requirements are met:</p> <blockquote><p>The United States Congress has passed an official declaration of war or has taken an official action pursuant to article I, section 8, clause 15 of the United States Constitution to explicitly call forth the Wyoming National Guard and any member thereof for the enumerated purposes of expressly executing the laws of the union, repelling invasion or suppressing an insurrection.</p></blockquote> <p>“Active duty combat” is defined as performing the following services in the active federal military service of the United States:</p> <ul> <li>Participation in an armed conflict;</li> <li>Performance of a hazardous service in a foreign state; or</li> <li>Performance of a duty through an instrumentality of war.</li> </ul> <p>“Official declaration of war” is defined as “an official declaration of war made by the United States Congress pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution.”</p> <p>The passage of SF119 would take a step toward reasserting state control over its militia.</p> <p>This is one of at least seven <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/10/04/defend-the-guard-a-powerful-check-on-unconstitutional-war-powers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Defend the Guard bills</a> that have been introduced in 2023.</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, Wyoming National Guard units have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and elsewhere.</p> <p>Since none of these missions have been accompanied by a Constitutional declaration of war, nor were they in pursuance of any of the three conditions set forth in Article 1 Sec. 8, the 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. The 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</strong></p> <p>SF119 was referred to the Joint Transportation, Highways &amp; Military Affairs Committee where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/wyoming-bill-would-set-foundation-to-end-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/">Wyoming Bill Would Set Foundation to End Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Defend the Guard State Bills Militia National Guard SF119 War Powers Wyoming Mike Maharrey New York Bill Would Ban Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition Surveillance https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/new-york-bill-would-ban-law-enforcement-use-of-facial-recognition-surveillance/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:a9da2f93-35f5-9933-cd33-a083a63dea7a Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:16:16 +0000 <p>The legislation would prohibit any police agency or police officer from acquiring, possessing, accessing, installing, activating, or using any "biometric surveillance system" including facial recognition. It would also bar the use of any biometric information or surveillance information derived from the use of a biometric surveillance system by any other entity. Provisions in the bill would also allow for individuals to seek damages for the violation of the law.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/new-york-bill-would-ban-law-enforcement-use-of-facial-recognition-surveillance/">New York Bill Would Ban Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition Surveillance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>ALBANY,</strong> N.Y. (Jan. 19, 2023) – A bill filed in the New York Senate would prohibit the use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technology by law enforcement. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in New York; it could also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-40762"></span></p> <p>Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal (D) introduced Senate Bill 1609 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/S01609/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">S1609</a>) on Jan. 13. The legislation would prohibit any police agency or police officer from acquiring, possessing, accessing, installing, activating, or using any &#8220;biometric surveillance system&#8221; including facial recognition. It would also bar the use of any biometric information or surveillance information derived from the use of a biometric surveillance system by any other entity. Provisions in the bill would also allow for individuals to seek damages for the violation of the law.</p> <p>&#8220;Biometric surveillance system&#8221; is defined as:</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;An automated or semi-automated process by which a person is identified or attempted to be identified based on their biometric information, including identification of known or unknown individuals or groups; and/or an automated or semi-automated process that generates, or assists in generating, surveillance information about an individual based on their biometric information.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>S1609 includes provisions allowing the use of mobile fingerprint scanners and the state DNA database.</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">2019 report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state driver’s 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 the story wasn’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 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>Despite the outrage generated by these reports, Congress has done nothing to roll back this facial recognition program.</p> <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. The 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>S1609 was referred to the Senate Committee on Internet and Technology where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/new-york-bill-would-ban-law-enforcement-use-of-facial-recognition-surveillance/">New York Bill Would Ban Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition Surveillance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Facial Recognition State Bills Biometrics facial recognition New York Privacy S1609 surveillance Mike Maharrey Utah Bill Would Limit State Enforcement of Federal Gun Control But Includes a Loophole https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/utah-bill-would-limit-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control-but-includes-a-loophole/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:339b885b-7bfb-73ef-f5f5-2f55462c0979 Thu, 19 Jan 2023 12:15:27 +0000 <p>A bill introduced in the Utah House would take on federal gun control and end state and local enforcement of many federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state. But the bill includes a loophole that could severely limit its effectiveness in practice.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/utah-bill-would-limit-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control-but-includes-a-loophole/">Utah Bill Would Limit State Enforcement of Federal Gun Control But Includes a Loophole</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>SALT LAKE CITY</strong>, Utah (Jan. 19, 2023) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Utah House would take on federal gun control and end state and local enforcement of many federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state. But the bill includes a loophole that could severely limit its effectiveness in practice. <span id="more-40761"></span></p> <p>Rep. Karianne Lisonbee (R) introduced House Bill 219 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/UT/bill/HB0219/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB219</a>) on Jan. 17. Titled the <em>Federal Firearm Enforcement Limitation Act</em>, the legislation would prohibit a law enforcement officer, state employee, or employee of a political subdivision from implementing, enforcing, assisting, or cooperating in the enforcement of a &#8220;federal regulation&#8221; on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.</p> <p>HB219 defines a &#8220;federal regulation&#8221; as &#8220;a federal law, statute, executive order, rule, or regulation that infringes upon, prohibits, restricts, or requires individual licensure for, or registration of, the purchase, ownership, possession, transfer, or use of a firearm, ammunition&#8221; that are not incorporated into Utah law.</p> <p>The bill would also ban the state or local governments from expending public funds or allocating public resources for the enforcement of a &#8220;federal regulation&#8221; on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.</p> <p>HB219 is similar to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-by-the-governor-arizona-law-bans-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a law passed in Arizona</a> during the 2021 legislative session.</p> <p><strong>MASSIVE LOOPHOLE?</strong></p> <p>However, despite the restrictions in the bill, HB219 includes an exception that would still allow state and local enforcement of federal gun control.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;This section does not prohibit or otherwise limit a law enforcement officer, state employee, or employee of a political subdivision from cooperating, communicating, or collaborating with a federal agency if the primary purpose of the cooperation is not the investigation or enforcement of a federal regulation on firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>State and local enforcement support for federal gun control is often in conjunction with some other operation with the feds — usually prosecution of the unconstitutional war on drugs. This exception creates a potentially massive loophole that would allow state and local law enforcement to continue enforcing federal regulations that don&#8217;t exist in state law. They would merely have to assert that the enforcement wasn&#8217;t &#8220;primarily&#8221; related to federal gun control &#8211; an extremely subjective standard.</p> <p><strong>STRATEGY</strong></p> <p>While passage into law wouldn’t end all gun control in Utah on day one, it would represent a  massive shift in strategy going forward. Once in effect, the bill would immediately do the following:</p> <ol> <li>Ban state and local enforcement of any federal gun control measures on the books that don’t have concurrent measures in law in the state of Utah.</li> <li>Ban state and local enforcement of any new gun control measures that might come from Washington D.C. in the future that aren’t on the books in Utah.</li> <li>Shift the focus and attention to any remaining gun control measures on the books in state law</li> <li>Encourage gun rights activists to work in future legislative sessions to repeal those state-level gun control measures as a follow-up.</li> </ol> <p>Each state-level gun control repeal would then represent a one-two punch, not only ending state enforcement, but would also automatically ending support for any concurrent federal gun control measure as soon as the state law repeal went into effect.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>Absent loopholes, a ban on state and local federal gun control is an effective way to stop it in its tracks.</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 most federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in Federalist #46, 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/" 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, 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 Utah 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 <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the 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> (1997) serves as the cornerstone. For the majority, Justice Scalia wrote, in part:</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>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB219 was referred to the House Rules Committee where it must get a hearing and be referred to a standing committee 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/2023/01/utah-bill-would-limit-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control-but-includes-a-loophole/">Utah Bill Would Limit State Enforcement of Federal Gun Control But Includes a Loophole</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Federal Gun Control firearms HB219 Utah Mike Maharrey Wyoming Bill Would Take Another Step Toward Treating Gold and Silver as Money https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/wyoming-bill-would-take-another-step-toward-treating-gold-and-silver-as-money/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:1efbd11b-e9cb-ad26-b55b-034f3a8fd6a7 Wed, 18 Jan 2023 20:15:01 +0000 <p>The law would amend the Wyoming Legal Tender Act to require the state treasurer to establish a system to provide for the payment of state and local taxes with specie or specie legal tender "subject to authentication procedures ... that are consistent with precious metals industry standards."</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/wyoming-bill-would-take-another-step-toward-treating-gold-and-silver-as-money/">Wyoming Bill Would Take Another Step Toward Treating Gold and Silver as Money</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>CHEYENNE</strong>, Wyo. (Jan. 18, 2023) &#8211; A bill filed in the Wyoming Senate would expand the Wyoming Legal Tender Act to create a process for the state to accept gold and silver for the payment of taxes. The passage of this bill would set the stage to further undermine the Federal Reserve&#8217;s monopoly on money.<span id="more-40748"></span></p> <p>A coalition of 12 Republicans introduced Senate Bill 101 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WY/bill/SF0101/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SF101</a>) on Jan. 12. The law would amend the <em>Wyoming Legal Tender Act</em> to require the state treasurer to establish a system to provide for the payment of state and local taxes with specie or specie legal tender &#8220;subject to authentication procedures &#8230; that are consistent with precious metals industry standards.&#8221;</p> <p>Under Wyoming law, specie legal tender is defined as coins having gold or silver content, or refined bullion, coined, stamped, or imprinted with its weight and purity.</p> <p>As part of the process, the state treasurer would determine, maintain and publish market-based exchange rates between specie, specie legal tender and other legal tender currencies on a real-time basis on the state treasurer&#8217;s website in order to calculate tax payments to or from the state.</p> <p>SF101 would also empower the state treasurer to invest in precious metal leases or bonds payable in precious metals &#8220;if market conditions warrant.&#8221;</p> <p><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></p> <p>The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/wyoming-legal-tender-act-treats-gold-and-silver-as-money-foundation-to-undermine-the-federal-reserve/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wyoming Legal Tender Act passed in 2018</a> defined gold and silver specie as legal tender and eliminated all taxes levied on them. Oklahoma and Utah also recognize gold and silver as legal tender.</p> <p>The effect has been most dramatic in Utah where <a href="https://upma.org/">United Precious Metals Association</a> (UMPA) was established after the passage of the Utah Specie Legal Tender Act and the elimination of all taxes on gold and silver. UPMA offers accounts denominated in U.S.-minted gold and silver dollars. The company was also instrumental in the development of the “<a href="https://www.goldback.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Utah Goldback</a>,” described as “the first local, voluntary currency to be made of a spendable, beautiful, physical gold.”</p> <p>Recognizing gold and silver as legal tender takes an important first step toward currency competition. If sound money gains a foothold in the marketplace against Federal Reserve notes, the people would be able to choose the time-tested stability of gold and silver over the central bank’s rapidly-depreciating paper currency. The freedom of choice expanded by recognizing gold and silver as legal tender will allow Wyoming residents to secure the purchasing power of their money.</p> <p>The passage of SF101 would further establish the role of gold and silver as legal tender in Wyoming by creating a legitimate mechanism to use species legal tender for the payment of state and local taxes,</p> <p>The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” States have simply ignored this constitutional provision for years. It’s impossible for a state to return to a constitutional sound money system when it taxes gold and silver as a commodity.</p> <p>This <em>Wyoming Legal Tender Act</em> reestablished gold and silver as legal tender in the state and took a step toward that constitutional requirement, ignored for decades in every state. This sets the stage to undermine the monopoly of the Federal Reserve by introducing competition into the monetary system.</p> <p>Constitutional tender expert Professor William Greene said when people in multiple states actually start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve Notes, it could create a “<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/reversing-gresham-good-money-can-drive-out-bad/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reverse Gresham’s effect</a>,” drive out bad money, effectively nullify the Federal Reserve, and end the federal government’s monopoly on money.</p> <blockquote><p>“Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state – as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions.”</p></blockquote> <p>Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people. Nullifying the Fed on a state-by-state level is what will get us there.</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/2023/01/wyoming-bill-would-take-another-step-toward-treating-gold-and-silver-as-money/">Wyoming Bill Would Take Another Step Toward Treating Gold and Silver as Money</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Federal Reserve State Bills Gold SF101 Silver Sound Money Wyoming Mike Maharrey Don’t Trust Government https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/dont-trust-any-government/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:b6047445-88e1-608b-c417-75cbc769a423 Wed, 18 Jan 2023 18:31:30 +0000 <p>How do you trust governments that consistently disregard the Constitution and infringe on individual liberty? You can’t. But it’s important to always remain skeptical of any government - and stand firm in the defense of our Constitution and liberty.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/dont-trust-any-government/">Don’t Trust Government</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>How do you trust governments that consistently disregard the Constitution and infringe on individual liberty? You can’t. But it’s important to always remain skeptical of any government &#8211; and stand firm in the defense of our Constitution and liberty.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: Jan 18, 2023<span id="more-40756"></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/ePHhDzhTZgs?start=72" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" 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://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/16/dont-trust-the-government-with-your-privacy-property-or-your-freedoms/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John and Nisha Whitehead &#8211; Rutherford Institute</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/01-02-02-0002-0002-0001" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Adams &#8211; Notes for an Oration at Braintree (spring 1772)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1906#Elliot_1314-02_124" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Old Abraham White &#8211; Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (16 Jan 1788)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/11/patriot-act-on-steroids-surveillance-state-beyond-section-215/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Episode &#8211; Patriot Act on Steroids</a></p> <p><a href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Madison &#8211; Property (29 Mar 1792)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/adams-the-works-of-john-adams-vol-6#lf1431-06_label_095" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Adams &#8211; Works 6</a></p> <p><a href="https://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/2261" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Thomas Jefferson &#8211; Notes on the State of Virginia</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/tucker-view-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-with-selected-writings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">St. George Tucker &#8211; View of the Constitution of the United States (1803)</a></p> <p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_602.asp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Benjamin Franklin, Philadelphia Convention (2 June 1787)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/what-we-do-about-it/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Episode &#8211; What Do We Do About it?</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.redhill.org/primary-sources/liberty-or-empire/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Patrick Henry &#8211; Virginia Ratifying Convention (5 June 1788)</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES (links update after 12pm Pacific today)</strong></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></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/2023/01/dont-trust-any-government/">Don’t Trust Government</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Current Events Founding Fathers Path to Liberty Government Power Trust Warnings Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 28:08 How do you trust governments that consistently disregard the Constitution and infringe on individual liberty? You can’t. But it’s important to always remain skeptical of any government - and stand firm in the defense of our Constitution and liberty. How do you trust governments that consistently disregard the Constitution and infringe on individual liberty? You can’t. But it’s important to always remain skeptical of any government - and stand firm in the defense of our Constitution and liberty. New Hampshire Bill Would Reform Civil Asset Forfeiture Process and Take Steps to Opt Out of Federal Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/new-hampshire-bill-would-reform-civil-asset-forfeiture-process-and-take-steps-to-opt-out-of-federal-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:e8624a2b-9f0b-cf48-9de5-4ca24a68e043 Wed, 18 Jan 2023 18:26:32 +0000 <p>New Hampshire law establishes a specific asset forfeiture process for drug offenses. This legislation would reform that process to require prosecutors to get a conviction in most cases before proceeding with forfeiture.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/new-hampshire-bill-would-reform-civil-asset-forfeiture-process-and-take-steps-to-opt-out-of-federal-program/">New Hampshire Bill Would Reform Civil Asset Forfeiture Process and Take Steps to Opt Out of Federal Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>CONCORD</strong>, N.H. (Jan. 18, 2023) &#8211; A bill introduced in the New Hampshire House would reform the asset forfeiture process for drug offenses to require a criminal conviction in most cases. It would also take a step to opt the state out of a program that allows police to circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the feds.<span id="more-40745"></span></p> <p>Rep. Dan McGuire (R) and Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R) introduced House Bill 593 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB593/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB593</a>) on Jan. 12. New Hampshire law establishes a specific asset forfeiture process for drug offenses. This legislation would reform that process to require prosecutors to get a conviction in most cases before proceeding with forfeiture.</p> <p>New Hampshire has asset forfeiture processes for other crimes, but the vast majority of forfeitures in the state are related to drug offenses.</p> <p>The Institute for Justice gives <a href="https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/?state=NH" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Hampshire civil asset forfeiture laws a D</a> saying, &#8220;New Hampshire civil forfeiture laws do not adequately protect the rights of property owners.</p> <p>Passage of HB593 would take a step to opt New Hampshire out of a federal program that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws in drug-related cases. 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, 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>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<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 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>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>HB593 directly addresses the federal equitable sharing program with the following language:</p> <blockquote><p>No state or local law enforcement agency shall transfer or offer for adoption property, seized under state law, to a federal agency for the purpose of forfeiture under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Public Law 91-513.</p></blockquote> <p>But the law would still allow the transfer of property to federal authorities if state or local police are working on a joint task force with the feds. This would leave a pretty significant loophole open to transfer cases to the federal government.</p> <p>HB593 includes provisions that would put set the stage to establish concrete limits on forfeiture when joint task forces are involved.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The attorney general, after consulting with the responsible United States Attorney, shall establish guidelines for joint task forces and multijurisdictional collaboration with the federal government.  The guidelines shall be consistent with federal safeguards to ensure that activities are conducted in compliance with the U.S. Department of Justice’s policies.  They shall include a minimum dollar value for seizures that the U.S. Attorney will accept for forfeiture under federal law so as to ensure that transfers of seized property to the federal government are not used to circumvent state law under this chapter.&#8221;</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>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB593 was referred to the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee where it must get a hearing before moving forward in the legislative process. An &#8220;ought-to-pass&#8221; recommendation would increase chances 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/2023/01/new-hampshire-bill-would-reform-civil-asset-forfeiture-process-and-take-steps-to-opt-out-of-federal-program/">New Hampshire Bill Would Reform Civil Asset Forfeiture Process and Take Steps to Opt Out of Federal Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing HB593 New Hampshire Policing for Profit Mike Maharrey New York Bill Would Prohibit Data-Sharing with the Feds on an Individual’s Religious Affiliation https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/new-york-bill-would-prohibit-data-sharing-with-the-feds-on-an-individuals-religious-affiliation/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4b4d5115-dbee-ca40-ce2a-32b7272f189d Wed, 18 Jan 2023 17:28:08 +0000 <p>Titled the New York Religious Freedom Act, the legislation would prohibit any state or local agency and their employees from providing or disclosing to federal government authorities personally identifiable information regarding the religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation of any individual for the purpose of compiling a list registry, or database of individuals based on religious affiliation national origin, or ethnicity. S115 would also prohibit any state or local agency from using money, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to compile such a list.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/new-york-bill-would-prohibit-data-sharing-with-the-feds-on-an-individuals-religious-affiliation/">New York Bill Would Prohibit Data-Sharing with the Feds on an Individual’s Religious Affiliation</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>ALBANY</strong>, N.Y. (Jan. 18, 2023) &#8211; A bill introduced in the New York Senate would prohibit the state from assisting the federal government in creating any list or database based on a person&#8217;s religion. <span id="more-40661"></span></p> <p>A coalition of seven Democrats introduced Senate Bill 115 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/S00115/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">S115</a>) on Jan. 4. Titled the <em>New York Religious Freedom Act</em>, the legislation would prohibit any state or local agency and their employees from providing or disclosing to federal government authorities personally identifiable information regarding the religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation of any individual for the purpose of compiling a list registry, or database of individuals based on religious affiliation national origin, or ethnicity. S115 would also prohibit any state or local agency from using money, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to compile such a list.</p> <p>The proposed law would not bar state or local agencies from sending or receiving information regarding an individual&#8217;s citizenship or immigration status.</p> <p>The passage of S115 would make it more difficult for the federal government to compile lists based on religious practice and violate the First Amendment.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></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” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states. This legislation could effectively end enforcement of any federal laws deemed to violate the Constitution.</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>State refusal to cooperate with the implementation or enforcement of federal acts is based 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 – 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>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>S115 was referred to the Senate Codes Committee where it must get a hearing and 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/2023/01/new-york-bill-would-prohibit-data-sharing-with-the-feds-on-an-individuals-religious-affiliation/">New York Bill Would Prohibit Data-Sharing with the Feds on an Individual’s Religious Affiliation</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. State Bills anti-commandeering First Amendment New York religion Mike Maharrey Maryland Bill Would Ban State from Denying Firearms to Medical Marijuana Users https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/maryland-bill-would-ban-state-from-denying-firearms-to-medical-marijuana-users/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:df9aadc6-0599-28ac-de87-184df339fff0 Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:39:24 +0000 <p>Under the proposed law, a person could not be denied the right to purchase, possess, or carry a firearm solely on the basis that they are authorized to use medical cannabis. The bill includes specific provisions prohibiting access to the state's medical marijuana database "for the purpose of approving or disapproving an individual from purchasing, owning, possessing, or carrying a firearm."</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2023/01/maryland-bill-would-ban-state-from-denying-firearms-to-medical-marijuana-users/">Maryland Bill Would Ban State from Denying Firearms to Medical Marijuana Users</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>ANNAPOLIS</strong>, Md. (Jan. 18, 2023) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Maryland House would prohibit the Maryland State Police from denying a medical marijuana cardholder the ability to purchase a firearm.<span id="more-40763"></span></p> <p>Del Robin Grammer (R) introduced House Bill 167 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB167/2023" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB167</a>) on Jan. 17. Under the proposed law, a person could not be denied the right to purchase, possess, or carry a firearm solely on the basis that they are authorized to use medical cannabis. The bill includes specific provisions prohibiting access to the state&#8217;s medical marijuana database &#8220;for the purpose of approving or disapproving an individual from purchasing, owning, possessing, or carrying a firearm.&#8221;</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;It is the intent of the general assembly that medical cannabis should be treated as legal for purposes of state law and that the state should not penalize a qualifying patient for using the drug legally.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>The Maryland State Police oversee gun registration and ownership in the state and they ask prospective gun buyers if they have a medical marijuana card. Buyers must allow the state health department to disclose whether they have applied for a card. MSP can block a gun purchase based on an individual’s participation in the state’s legal medical marijuana program. Passage of SB190 would put that to an end.</p> <p>As <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/03/states-need-to-step-up-and-protect-medical-marijuana-users-from-federal-gun-laws/">Suzanne Sherman noted in an article for the Tenth Amendment Center</a>, the federal government has long claimed the power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms of medical marijuana patients:</p> <blockquote><p>If you purchase a firearm from an FFL, you will be presented with the Firearms Transaction Record form 4473, which you must, under penalty of perjury, answer fully and truthfully. You may see it for yourself <a href="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HERE</a>.</p> <p>Question 11(c) asks prospective gun purchasers if they are unlawfully using any controlled substances. You think, “Hey, I can answer ‘no,’ as marijuana is now legal in my state. Immediately following the inquiry is the following admonition (in bold letters):</p> <p>“<strong>Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law, regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.</strong>”</p> <p>Not surprisingly, in 2016, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of appeals ruled that this restriction does not violate the Second Amendment.</p></blockquote> <p>Most states have adopted this federal ban on owning firearms for medical marijuana users, or simply help in its enforcement. In Hawaii, for example, police sent letters to medical marijuana patients who owned guns telling them they had <a href="http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/11/28/breaking-news/honolulu-police-tell-legal-marijuana-users-to-turn-in-their-firearms/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">30 days to surrender their weapons</a>.</p> <p>While the passage of HB167 wouldn’t overturn the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, it would end state and local enforcement of one aspect of that unconstitutional act in Maryland. And as we’ve seen so prominently in immigration sanctuary cities and states with marijuana legalization, when state and local enforcement ends, the federal government has an extremely difficult time enforcing their acts.</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/07/the-blueprint-james-madisons-advice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in <em>Federalist #46</em></a>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” offers an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states. 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>In 2018, Utah became the first state to pass legislation to help make federal gun bans for medical marijuana patients “nearly impossible” to enforce. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/signed-by-the-governor-utah-law-implements-medical-marijuana-bans-resources-for-some-federal-enforcement/">law prohibits</a> expending any state or local resources, including an officer’s time, to “enforce a law that restricts an individual’s right to acquire, own, or possess a firearm based solely on the individual’s possession or use of cannabis in accordance with state medical cannabis laws.”</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB167 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It is scheduled for a hearing on Feb. 1 at 2:30 p.m. It must pass the 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/2023/01/maryland-bill-would-ban-state-from-denying-firearms-to-medical-marijuana-users/">Maryland Bill Would Ban State from Denying Firearms to Medical Marijuana Users</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills cannabis firearms guns and weed HB167 Marijuana Maryland Mike Maharrey