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/ South Dakota Committee Passes Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeiture, Withdraw From Federal Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/south-dakota-committee-passes-bill-to-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-withdraw-from-federal-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:bc96a855-d330-b854-23b2-2d3dab0ef53c Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:56:38 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/south-dakota-committee-passes-bill-to-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-withdraw-from-federal-program/" title="South Dakota Committee Passes Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeiture, Withdraw From Federal Program" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-south-dakota-022520.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-south-dakota-022520.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-south-dakota-022520-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-south-dakota-022520-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-south-dakota-022520-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />PIERRE, S.D. (Feb. 25, 2020) – Today, a South Dakota Senate committee passed a bill that would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction in most cases and withdraw the state from a federal program that allows police to circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by passing [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/south-dakota-committee-passes-bill-to-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-withdraw-from-federal-program/" title="South Dakota Committee Passes Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeiture, Withdraw From Federal Program" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-south-dakota-022520.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-south-dakota-022520.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-south-dakota-022520-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-south-dakota-022520-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-south-dakota-022520-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>PIERRE</strong>, S.D. (Feb. 25, 2020) – Today, a South Dakota Senate committee passed a bill that would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction in most cases and withdraw the state from a federal program that allows police to circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government.<span id="more-34303"></span></p> <p>Sen. Arthur Rusch (R-Vermillion) and Rep. Jess Olson (R-Rapid City) introduced Senate Bill 172 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/SD/bill/SB172/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB172</a>) on Feb. 6. The legislation would effectively end civil asset forfeiture in South Dakota and replace it with a criminal forfeiture process. Under the proposed law, prosecutors could not proceed with asset forfeiture proceedings unless the criminal prosecution that provides the basis for the forfeiture results in a conviction and the state establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the property constitutes, or is derived directly from, proceeds of the underlying offense for which the person was convicted; or if the property was used in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of the offense for which the person was convicted.</p> <p>The Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB172 by a 5-2 vote.</p> <p>The <a href="https://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-south-dakota/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Institute for Justice calls South Dakota’s asset forfeiture laws</a> “some of the worst in the country.” In order to forfeit property, law enforcement only has to tie it to a crime by a preponderance of the evidence. Under the current law, people in South Dakota can have the property permanently seized without even being charged with a crime. There is also a strong “policing for profit” incentive in the state, with law enforcement keeping up to 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds.</p> <p>The Judiciary Committee amended SB172 to address the policing for-profit motive. Under the proposed law, state and local law enforcement agencies could be reimbursed for expenses incurred prosecuting the case with forfeiture funds, but any additional money would go to the state school system.</p> <p>The Judiciary Committee also amended the bill to close a loophole that allows state and local police to circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by simply passing cases off to the feds.</p> <p>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).</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/federal-asset-forfeiture-program-helps-local-police-steal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Equitable Sharing</a>” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.</p> <p>Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state closed the loophole</a> in 2016.</p> <p>SB172 closes this loophole with a complete prohibition on passing cases to federal authorities.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;A local or state law enforcement agency may not refer, transfer, or otherwise relinquish possession of property seized under state law to a federal agency by way of adoption of the seized property or other means by the federal agency for the purpose of the property&#8217;s forfeiture under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Public Law 91-513, or other federal law.&#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>SB172 will go to the Senate floor for further consideration.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing Policing for Profit SB172 South Dakota Mike Maharrey Idaho Committee Passes Bill to Expand “Constitutional Carry” Law https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/idaho-committee-passes-bill-to-expand-constitutional-carry-law/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f78bac22-81df-829b-d3e8-86b8c237dcb4 Tue, 25 Feb 2020 17:24:33 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/idaho-committee-passes-bill-to-expand-constitutional-carry-law/" title="Idaho Committee Passes Bill to Expand &#8220;Constitutional Carry&#8221; Law" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />BOISE, Idaho (Feb. 25, 2019) &#8211; Yesterday, an Idaho House Committee passed a bill to let any U.S. citizen over 18 who can legally own a gun carry concealed in city limits without a permit. Currently, anyone over 18 can carry a concealed weapon without a permit in most places in Idaho, but only Idaho [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/idaho-committee-passes-bill-to-expand-constitutional-carry-law/" title="Idaho Committee Passes Bill to Expand &#8220;Constitutional Carry&#8221; Law" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/carry-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>BOISE</strong>, Idaho (Feb. 25, 2019) &#8211; Yesterday, an Idaho House Committee passed a bill to let any U.S. citizen over 18 who can legally own a gun carry concealed in city limits without a permit.<span id="more-34302"></span></p> <p>Currently, anyone over 18 can carry a concealed weapon without a permit in most places in Idaho, but only Idaho residents can do so within city limits.</p> <p>In 2015 lawmakers passed a bill allowing permitless concealed carry outside of city limits. In 2016, they got rid of the requirement for Idaho residents to need a permit to carry concealed within city limits. In 2019, the age for concealed carry in city limits was reduced from 21 to 18.</p> <p>If signed into law, House Bill 516 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/ID/bill/H0516/2020">H516</a>) would extend the broad concealed carry protections in the state to all U.S. citizens.</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 H516 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>H516 will now move to the full House for further debate and consideration.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Constitutional Carry H516 idaho Michael Boldin Minnesota Committee Passes Bill to Limit Drone Surveillance https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/minnesota-bill-would-limit-drone-surveillance/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d46838c3-fdf8-8122-92db-c9c211d96c97 Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:43:40 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/minnesota-bill-would-limit-drone-surveillance/" title="Minnesota Committee Passes Bill to Limit Drone Surveillance" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />ST PAUL, Minn. (Feb. 25, 2020) – Last week, a Minnesota House committee passed a bill that would limit warrantless drone surveillance. The legislation would not only establish important privacy protections at the state level; it would also help thwart the federal surveillance state. A bipartisan coalition of four Democrats and two Republicans introduced House [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/minnesota-bill-would-limit-drone-surveillance/" title="Minnesota Committee Passes Bill to Limit Drone Surveillance" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>ST PAUL</strong>, Minn. (Feb. 25, 2020) – Last week, a Minnesota House committee passed a bill that would limit warrantless drone surveillance. The legislation would not only establish important privacy protections at the state level; it would also help thwart the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-34268"></span></p> <p>A bipartisan coalition of four Democrats and two Republicans introduced House Bill 3009 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MN/bill/HF3009/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HF3009</a>) on Feb. 11. The legislation would require law enforcement agencies to get a warrant before deploying a drone in most situations. It would also prohibit the use of facial recognition technology on a drone unless the warrant specifically authorizes it. Additionally, the bill would impose a complete ban on armed drones.</p> <p>On Feb. 20, the House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Division passed HF3009 with some technical amendments.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, a law enforcement agency would be required to get local government approval before acquiring a drone.</p> <p>HF3009 also includes restrictions on the retention and sharing of data gathered by a drone.</p> <p>Information obtained or collected by a law enforcement agency in violation of the law would not admissible as evidence in a criminal, administrative, or civil proceeding against the data subject.</p> <p>The bill does include several exceptions to the warrant requirement. Police could deploy a drone without a warrant during an operation in an emergency situation that involves a reasonably likely threat to the life or safety of a person; over a public event where there is a heightened risk to the safety of participants or bystanders; to counter the risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the agency determines that credible intelligence indicates a risk; during natural disasters; to conduct threat assessments; for crash reconstruction; to collect information from a public area if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; for training purposes; and for non-law enforcement purposes.</p> <p><strong>Impact on the Federal Surveillance State</strong></p> <p>Although the proposed law would only apply to state and local drone use, it throws a high hurdle in front of some federal programs.</p> <p>According to <a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/dronesunmanned-aerial-vehicles" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation</a>, drones can be equipped with various types of surveillance equipment that can collect high definition video and still images day and night. Drones can be equipped with technology allowing them to intercept cell phone calls, determine GPS locations, and gather license plate information. Drones can be used to determine whether individuals are carrying guns. Synthetic-aperture radar can identify changes in the landscape, such as footprints and tire tracks. Some drones are even equipped with facial recognition. According to research from the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, 347 U.S. police, sheriff, fire, and emergency response units acquired drones between 2009 and early 2017—primarily sheriff’s offices and local police departments. As EFF put it, “Drones pose a multitude of privacy risks because they can amass large amounts of data on private citizens, including those engaging in constitutionally protected activity, even if they have not been accused of a crime.”</p> <p>Much of the funding for drones at the state and local level comes from the federal government, in and of itself a constitutional violation. In return, federal agencies tap into the information gathered by state and local law enforcement through 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>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.</p> <p>The federal government encourages and funds a network of drones at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on drone use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.</p> <p>Currently, at least 19 states—Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin—require law enforcement agencies in certain circumstances to obtain a search warrant to use drones for surveillance or to conduct a search.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HF3009 will now move to the House floor for further consideration.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Drones State Bills drone Fourth Amendment HF3009 Minnesota Privacy surveillance UAV Mike Maharrey Kansas Committee Passes Bill to Expand Raw Milk Market; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/kansas-committee-passes-bill-to-expand-raw-milk-market-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4edff07a-a545-7266-a799-da555d8114bc Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:08:14 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/kansas-committee-passes-bill-to-expand-raw-milk-market-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/" title="Kansas Committee Passes Bill to Expand Raw Milk Market; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />TOPEKA, Kan. (Feb 24, 2020) – Last week, a Kansas Senate committee passed a bill that would help expand the market for raw milk in the state and take a step toward nullifying a federal prohibition scheme in effect. The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee introduced Senate Bill 308 (SB308) on Jan. 23. Under [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/kansas-committee-passes-bill-to-expand-raw-milk-market-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/" title="Kansas Committee Passes Bill to Expand Raw Milk Market; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>TOPEKA</strong>, Kan. (Feb 24, 2020) – Last week, a Kansas Senate committee passed a bill that would help expand the market for raw milk in the state and take a step toward nullifying a federal prohibition scheme in effect.<span id="more-34292"></span></p> <p>The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee introduced Senate Bill 308 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/KS/bill/SB308/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB308</a>) on Jan. 23. Under current Kansas law, on-farm sales of raw milk and raw milk products are allowed but there are strict limits on the promotion of the product. SB308 would lift the restrictions on the promotion of raw milk and allow producers to advertise their products.</p> <p>SB308 would also expand the definition of raw milk to include the milk of all mammals. Under current law, farmers can only legally sell unpasteurized cow milk.</p> <p>The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee passed SB308 with some technical amendments.</p> <p>Enactment of SB308 would not only take another step toward opening up the raw milk market in Kansas; 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; they also claim the authority to ban unpasteurized milk <em>within the borders of a state</em>.</p> <p>“It is within HHS’s authority…to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well,” FDA officials wrote in response to a <a href="http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund </a>lawsuit against the agency over the interstate ban.</p> <p>The FDA clearly wants complete prohibition of raw milk and some insiders say it’s only a matter of time before the feds try to institute an absolute ban. Armed raids by FDA agents on companies like Rawsome Foods back in 2011 and Amish farms over the last few years also indicate this scenario may not be too far off.</p> <p>When states allow the sale of raw milk within their borders, it takes an important step toward nullifying this federal prohibition scheme.</p> <p>We saw this demonstrated dramatically in states that legalized industrial hemp even as the federal government maintained virtual prohibition. When states authorized production, farmers began growing industrial hemp, even in the face of a federal ban. Despite facing the possibility of federal prosecution, some growers were still willing to step into the void and begin cultivating the plant once the state removed its barriers. Eventually, the pressure on the feds led to <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/26/feds-legalize-hemp-but-not-cbd-states-can-continue-to-nullify-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the repeal of hemp prohibition</a>.</p> <p>In the same way, removing state barriers to raw milk consumption, sale and production would undoubtedly spur the creation of new markets for unpasteurized dairy products, no matter what the feds claim the power to do.</p> <p>It could ultimately nullify the interstate ban as well. If all 50 states allow raw milk, markets within the states could easily grow to the point that local sales would render the federal ban on interstate commerce pointless. And history indicates the feds do not have the resources to stop people from transporting raw milk across state lines – especially if multiple states start legalizing it. Growing markets will quickly overwhelm any federal enforcement attempts.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB308 will now go to the full Senate for further consideration.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Raw Milk State Bills FDA food freedom kansas SB308 unpasteurized milk Mike Maharrey Minnesota Committee Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Data Collection, Take On Federal Surveillance State https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/minnesota-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-data-collection-take-on-federal-surveillance-state/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:853a1ff9-624b-30b6-c69c-057457e38ca0 Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:07:05 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/minnesota-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-data-collection-take-on-federal-surveillance-state/" title="Minnesota Committee Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Data Collection, Take On Federal Surveillance State" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-MARCH-Illustration-o-85745606-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-MARCH-Illustration-o-85745606-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-MARCH-Illustration-o-85745606-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-MARCH-Illustration-o-85745606-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-MARCH-Illustration-o-85745606-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />ST. PAUL, Minn. (Feb. 24, 2020) &#8211; Last week, a Minnesota House committee passed a bill that would require police to get a search warrant before requiring an individual or service provider to disclose electronic data in most cases. Passage of the bill would not only help protect privacy in Minnesota; it would also hinder [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/minnesota-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-data-collection-take-on-federal-surveillance-state/" title="Minnesota Committee Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Data Collection, Take On Federal Surveillance State" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-MARCH-Illustration-o-85745606-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-MARCH-Illustration-o-85745606-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-MARCH-Illustration-o-85745606-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-MARCH-Illustration-o-85745606-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-MARCH-Illustration-o-85745606-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>ST. PAUL</strong>, Minn. (Feb. 24, 2020) &#8211; Last week, a Minnesota House committee passed a bill that would require police to get a search warrant before requiring an individual or service provider to disclose electronic data in most cases. Passage of the bill would not only help protect privacy in Minnesota; it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-34264"></span></p> <p>Rep. John Lesch (D-St. Paul) introduced House Bill 3010 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MN/bill/HF3010/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HF3010</a>) on Feb. 11. The legislation would require all government entities to obtain a search warrant before they could require disclosure of electronic communication information from an individual or a service provider.</p> <p>The bill includes two exceptions to the warrant requirement. Government agencies could require disclosure of electronic data with &#8220;valid consent from one authorized to give it,&#8221; or if there are exigent circumstances where there is a danger to the life or physical safety of an individual.</p> <p>HF3010 would implement strict reporting requirements for law enforcement agencies engaging in electronic data collection.</p> <p>On Feb. 20, the Judiciary and Public Safety Finance and Policy passed HF3010.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS</strong></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. As a result, data collected by local police often ends up permanently stored in federal databases. Limits on electronic data collection at that state and local level mean there is less data for the feds to tap into.</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>By placing restrictions on data collection, state and local governments limit the electronic information available that the feds can access.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Enactment of HF3010 would strike a major blow to the surveillance state and would be a win for privacy.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HF3010 now goes to the full House for further consideration.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> State Bills Surveillance electronic data Fourth Amendment HF3010 Minnesota Privacy surveillance Mike Maharrey Nullify the War on Drugs: Resist, Don’t Trust D.C. https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/nullify-the-war-on-drugs-resist-dont-trust-d-c/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:62b74463-84e4-62c6-0410-3df707b41898 Mon, 24 Feb 2020 18:39:45 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/nullify-the-war-on-drugs-resist-dont-trust-d-c/" title="Nullify the War on Drugs: Resist, Don&#8217;t Trust D.C." rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/path-022420.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-022420.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-022420-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-022420-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/path-022420-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />As part of the 2021 proposed federal budget, the administration is trying to ramp up attacks on the 10th Amendment and the states who have legalized despite federal prohibition. Path to Liberty: February 24, 2020 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes &#124; Google Play &#124; Stitcher &#124; Spotify &#124; RSS SHOW LINKS: JOIN TAC Show Archives Subscribe [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/nullify-the-war-on-drugs-resist-dont-trust-d-c/" title="Nullify the War on Drugs: Resist, Don&#8217;t Trust D.C." rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/path-022420.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-022420.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-022420-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-022420-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/path-022420-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>As part of the 2021 proposed federal budget, the administration is trying to ramp up attacks on the 10th Amendment and the states who have legalized despite federal prohibition.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: February 24, 2020<span id="more-34294"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/jS6kWqvywQs?start=59" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>PODCAST VERSION</strong></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">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&amp;isi=691797987&amp;ius=googleplaymusic&amp;apn=com.google.android.music&amp;link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ic7vaa26zzqtt2zmxovxwkxktem?t%3DPath_to_Liberty%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Play</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></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://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/24/trump-wants-to-resume-prosecuting-medical-marijuana-users-in-states-where-its-legal/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Trump Administration Wants to Resume Prosecuting Medical Marijuana Users in States Where It’s Legal</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/trump-budget-proposes-ending-state-medical-marijuana-protections-and-blocking-dc-from-legalizing/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Trump Budget Proposes Ending State Medical Marijuana Protections And Blocking DC From Legalizing</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/trump-says-he-can-ignore-medical-marijuana-protections-passed-by-congress/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Trump Says He Can Ignore Medical Marijuana Protections Passed By Congress</a></p> <p><a href="https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/samuel-adams/samuel-adams-writing-as-candidus-essay-in-the-boston-gazette-oct-14-1771" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Samuel Adams, writing as Candidus, Essay in the Boston Gazette, Oct. 14, 1771.</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/f1e3ecf4-1557-4fda-9649-5e2b67d39893" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/NsXUB3mtHGhE/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/7f5d92ad-d01a-4881-875b-7bd400041a3a" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/557215211" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1vAxRBjQqNPxl" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter/videos/1508118629367544/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+mtlIrqwZR" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video Current Events Drug War Path to Liberty 10th Amendment cannabis Marijuana Obama Trump War on Drugs Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 32:29 As part of the 2021 proposed federal budget, the administration is trying to ramp up attacks on the 10th Amendment and the states who have legalized despite federal prohibition. Path to Liberty: February 24, As part of the 2021 proposed federal budget, the administration is trying to ramp up attacks on the 10th Amendment and the states who have legalized despite federal prohibition. Path to Liberty: February 24, 2020 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | Spotify | RSS SHOW LINKS: JOIN TAC Show Archives Subscribe […] Trump Administration Wants to Resume Prosecuting Medical Marijuana Users in States Where It’s Legal https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/24/trump-wants-to-resume-prosecuting-medical-marijuana-users-in-states-where-its-legal/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:e4594211-48bc-0fc0-f2bd-8d16d0d637aa Mon, 24 Feb 2020 18:35:43 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/24/trump-wants-to-resume-prosecuting-medical-marijuana-users-in-states-where-its-legal/" title="Trump Administration Wants to Resume Prosecuting Medical Marijuana Users in States Where It&#8217;s Legal" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bigstock-Big-human-hand-catching-busine-53971942-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bigstock-Big-human-hand-catching-busine-53971942-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bigstock-Big-human-hand-catching-busine-53971942-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bigstock-Big-human-hand-catching-busine-53971942-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bigstock-Big-human-hand-catching-busine-53971942-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />The Trump administration wants to restore funding to the Department of Justice so it can prosecute medical marijuana users in states where medicinal cannabis is legal. President Trump&#8217;s proposed 2021 budget would end an existing policy that protects state medical marijuana programs from DoJ interference. In 2014, Congress placed a provision in the Consolidated Appropriations [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/24/trump-wants-to-resume-prosecuting-medical-marijuana-users-in-states-where-its-legal/" title="Trump Administration Wants to Resume Prosecuting Medical Marijuana Users in States Where It&#8217;s Legal" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bigstock-Big-human-hand-catching-busine-53971942-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bigstock-Big-human-hand-catching-busine-53971942-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bigstock-Big-human-hand-catching-busine-53971942-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bigstock-Big-human-hand-catching-busine-53971942-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/bigstock-Big-human-hand-catching-busine-53971942-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>The Trump administration wants to restore funding to the Department of Justice so it can prosecute medical marijuana users in states where medicinal cannabis is legal.<span id="more-29084"></span></p> <p>President Trump&#8217;s proposed 2021 budget would <a href="https://blog.norml.org/2020/02/11/trump-budget-targets-marijuana-states-rights/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">end an existing policy</a> that protects state medical marijuana programs from DoJ interference.</p> <p>In 2014, Congress placed a provision in the <em>Consolidated Appropriations Act</em> providing that “[n]one of the funds made available … to the Department of Justice may be used … to prevent [various] States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.”</p> <p>This provision has been renewed by Congress each appropriations bill since.</p> <p>In August 2016. a federal appeals court upheld the provision by halting prosecutions of people using marijuana legally based on their state’s laws.</p> <blockquote><p>“In sum, § 542 prohibits DOJ from spending money on actions that prevent the Medical Marijuana States’ giving practical effect to their state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana….</p> <p>“[By prosecuting state-authorized medical marijuana users,] DOJ, without taking any legal action against the Medical Marijuana States, prevents them from implementing their laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana by prosecuting individuals for use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana that is authorized by such laws. By officially permitting certain conduct, state law provides for nonprosecution of individuals who engage in such conduct. If the federal government prosecutes such individuals, it has prevented the state from giving practical effect to its law providing for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in the permitted conduct.</p> <p>“We therefore conclude that, at a minimum, § 542 prohibits DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the prosecution of individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by the State Medical Marijuana Laws and who fully complied with such laws…”</p></blockquote> <p>In simple terms, Congress has effectively prohibited federal prosecution of marijuana users whose actions comply with all relevant state medical marijuana laws – despite the ongoing federal prohibition of marijuana. In effect, Congress has tied federal prosecutors’ hands so they can’t enforce federal law – despite the fact prohibition generally remains in effect.</p> <p>Trump wants to untie their hands.</p> <p>The proposed Trump 2021 budget would restore funding and allow the DoJ to resume prosecuting medical marijuana users and businesses in the 33 states where it is legal.</p> <p>Congress won&#8217;t likely end the current policy of noninterference. Pres. Obama also lobbied to have the provision stripped from spending bills during his tenure in the White House. But Trump has taken things to another level, hinting that he would ignore Congress and enforce federal marijuana prohibition in states where medicinal cannabis is legal despite the congressional directive.</p> <blockquote><p>“Division B, section 531 of the Act provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds made available under this Act to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories,” Trump wrote in a signing statement attached to the spending bill he signed last December. “My Administration will treat this provision consistent with the President’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.”</p></blockquote> <p>While this language doesn&#8217;t explicitly say the DoJ will begin prosecuting medical marijuana users, it certainly leaves that door open. As <a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/trump-says-he-can-ignore-medical-marijuana-protections-passed-by-congress/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an article in <em>Marijuana Moment</em></a> put it, &#8220;By calling out the medical marijuana rider, Trump is making clear that his administration believes it can broadly enforce federal drug laws against people complying with state medical marijuana laws even though Congress told him not to.&#8221;</p> <p>It&#8217;s hard to imagine where the president thinks he gets the authority to ignore Congress. If we accept the notion that Congress has the power to regulate marijuana (although it does not) it certainly has the authority to tell the DoJ how to allocate funds to enforce the marijuana prohibition it authorized.</p> <p>Even if Trump does decide to move forward with enforcement effort, it wouldn&#8217;t have much practical effect. FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. 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. When states legalize marijuana, they effectively nullify federal prohibtion in effect.</p> <p>Nevertheless, this kind of maneuvering by the feds has a chilling effect. An attorney in West Virginia reports that two of her clients who were applying for cultivation licenses under that state&#8217;s medical marijuana program withdrew their applications after Trump&#8217;s comments. Despite the fact that there is virtually no chance of actual prosecution, some people are too intimidated by federal bullying to take that chance.</p> <p>Regardless of the practical impact, Trump&#8217;s push to resume federal prosecution of marijuana users in states where medicinal cannabis is legal disregards the Constitution and reveals an extreme lack of respect for state sovereignty and disregard for individual liberty.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Current Events Drug War 2021 Budget DOJ Donald Trump medical-marijuana war-on-drugs Mike Maharrey A Primer on Domestic Spying https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/22/a-primer-on-domestic-spying/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:3dbbce95-bc48-3567-e612-a9da09c9bd73 Sat, 22 Feb 2020 23:16:18 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/22/a-primer-on-domestic-spying/" title="A Primer on Domestic Spying" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />A pernicious piece of legislation is slowly and silently making its way through Congress. It is a renewal of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act of 2001 has three sections that are scheduled to expire on March 15. One of those sections is the infamous 215, which authorizes the federal government to [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/22/a-primer-on-domestic-spying/" title="A Primer on Domestic Spying" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>A pernicious piece of legislation is slowly and silently making its way through Congress. It is a renewal of Section 215 of the Patriot Act.<span id="more-29083"></span></p> <p>The Patriot Act of 2001 has three sections that are scheduled to expire on March 15. One of those sections is the infamous 215, which authorizes the federal government to capture without a warrant all records of all people in America held by third parties.</p> <p><span class="column--highlighted-text">Do we really want the federal government to spy without warrants? </span>How can Congress, which has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, legislate such a blatant violation of it? Here is the backstory.</p> <p>After the Constitution was ratified in 1789, it was soon amended to recognize the existence of natural rights and to keep the government from interfering with them. As Justice Brandeis wrote 140 years afterward, the most comprehensive of those rights was the right to be let alone, which today we call privacy.</p> <p>To secure that right, the Fourth Amendment was ratified. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to prevent the government from utilizing general warrants and to require judicially authorized search warrants issued under narrow circumstances. James Madison, who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, shared the hatred that colonists-turned-Americans had for general warrants.</p> <p>A general warrant was a document issued by a secret court in London authorizing the bearer of the document, usually a British soldier or intelligence agent, to search wherever he wished and to seize whatever he found. The applicant for the warrant needed to demonstrate to the court only that the warrant was intended to unearth something that the government wanted. Because these warrants did not specify the object of the search, there was no limit to them.</p> <p>Hence Madison&#8217;s language in the Fourth Amendment preserving privacy but permitting the government to invade it only upon a showing, under oath, of probable cause of crime, and then requiring the warrant to specify in writing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.</p> <p>After 9/11, in the collective spirit of fear, timidity and subservience to the presidency, and in utter disregard for its members&#8217; oaths to uphold the Constitution, Congress enacted the Patriot Act. It permits one federal agent to authorize another federal agent to search and seize whatever the latter wishes to look at and capture so long as it is in the possession of third-party financial institutions.</p> <p>Over the years, the definition of &#8220;financial institution&#8221; has been radically expanded by both legislation and presidential executive orders so as to include nearly every conceivable entity that has any records about any person in America — from banks to hospitals to lawyers to merchants to credit card issuers to telecoms and computer service providers and even the post office.</p> <p>At the same time that the Patriot Act was being expanded, the National Security Agency — America&#8217;s 60,000-person strong domestic spy apparatus — was not even pretending to follow legislation. We know from Edward Snowden&#8217;s revelations — which have never been disputed by the government — that since 2003, the NSA has captured not only the records of Americans held by third parties but also the records of every keystroke touched by every person in America and every telephone call transmitted over fiber optic cable. That includes every email, text message and piece of data — even what was deleted. This warrantless mass surveillance continues today unabated.</p> <p>Also unabated and equally unlawful and unconstitutional is the government&#8217;s use of cell towers as monitors of movement. Whenever anyone travels with a mobile device in the U.S., the nearest cell tower picks up signals from the mobile device, even turned off. The government, which either owns the cell towers or under Section 215, captures all the data the towers amass, can effectively follow any person with a mobile device in real-time.</p> <p>How does the government get away with this?</p> <p>The feds have labored mightily to keep all of these constitutional violations as far from judicial scrutiny as they can. They rightly fear — they know — that all of this violates the Fourth Amendment. If their nefarious behavior, which we know they have used on the president of the United States and on the Supreme Court, comes under judicial scrutiny, the feds will argue that the Fourth Amendment only pertains to criminal prosecutions and not to domestic spying; thus, they can ignore it when they spy.</p> <p>They have made up this argument out of thin air. There is neither a hint in the language of the amendment nor a whiff in its history to support that argument.</p> <p>Has the government lost sight of our birthright? It is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — not to mention getting into Heaven. How can we do any of this if the government we have hired to preserve our liberty is surreptitiously destroying it?</p> <p>Brandeis&#8217; language about being let alone was written in 1928, in a dissent to a Supreme Court opinion that failed to recognize the right to privacy. Today, his dissent is the law of the land, but the feds ignore it. He wrote that there is more to life than owning material goods. There is the fulfillment of spiritual, intellectual and cultural goals and the achievement of intimate aspirations, none of which are the government&#8217;s business.</p> <p>Why do we permit the government to assault our most basic freedoms, under the law or under the table?</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> 4th Amendment Current Events Surveillance Congress NSA Patriot Act Section 215 Judge Andrew Napolitano Maryland Senate Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying; Hinder Federal Surveillance Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/maryland-senate-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-stingray-spying-hinder-federal-surveillance-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:55877a61-ed1a-edec-bde2-16b7b98303e8 Fri, 21 Feb 2020 22:38:51 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/maryland-senate-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-stingray-spying-hinder-federal-surveillance-program/" title="Maryland Senate Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying; Hinder Federal Surveillance Program" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/stingray-general-jan-2020.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/stingray-general-jan-2020.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/stingray-general-jan-2020-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/stingray-general-jan-2020-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/stingray-general-jan-2020-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Feb. 21, 2020) – Yesterday, the Maryland Senate unanimously passed a bill that would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones without a warrant and prohibit police from sweeping up electronic communications. The proposed law would not only protect privacy in Maryland, but it would also hinder one aspect [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/maryland-senate-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-stingray-spying-hinder-federal-surveillance-program/" title="Maryland Senate Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying; Hinder Federal Surveillance Program" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/stingray-general-jan-2020.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/stingray-general-jan-2020.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/stingray-general-jan-2020-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/stingray-general-jan-2020-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/stingray-general-jan-2020-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>ANNAPOLIS</strong>, Md. (Feb. 21, 2020) – Yesterday, the Maryland Senate unanimously passed a bill that would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones without a warrant and prohibit police from sweeping up electronic communications. The proposed law would not only protect privacy in Maryland, but it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-34289"></span></p> <p>Sen. Charles Sydnor (D-Baltimore) introduced Senate Bill 246 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/SB246/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB246</a>) in January. The legislation would help block the use of cell-site simulators, known as “<a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/cell-site-simulatorsimsi-catchers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">stingrays</a>.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower. This allows law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.</p> <p>SB246 would add provisions to existing Maryland statutes limiting warrantless location tracking through electronic devices to address the use of cell-site simulators. Under the proposed law, police would be required to get a court order based on probable cause before deploying a stingray device. The proposed law would bar police from using a stingray to obtain communication content and spells out explicit criteria law enforcement must meet in order to justify such an order.</p> <p>On Feb. 20, the Senate passed SB246 46-0.</p> <p>The proposed law includes limitations on the use of stingrays even with a court order. These restrictions would require police to restrict the investigative use of any third–party or non-target data without a further court order. The proposed law would require the deletion of any incidentally gathered information on persons not named in the court order immediately upon the expiration of the order.</p> <p>Information gathered in violation of the law would be subject to the exclusionary rule as judicially determined. Information gathered on non-targeted devices would not be admissible in court under any circumstances.</p> <p>Last year, an identical bill passed the Maryland House by a 140-0 vote, but it died in a Senate committee.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-stingray-case-20150408-story.html#page=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Baltimore Sun reported</a> in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.</p> <p>Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.</p> <p>“Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.</p> <p>“Yes,” Cabreja said.</p> <p>As <a href="https://privacysos.org/node/1715" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">privacysos.org</a> put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”</p> <p>The <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/06/07/inside-the-secretive-and-intrusive-world-of-stingray-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">experience of a Pinellas County, Florida, man further highlights the shroud of secrecy around the use of stingray devices</a>, along with the potential for abuse of power inherent in America’s law enforcement community.</p> <p>The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.</p> <p>Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal databases.</p> <p>The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p>The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Enactment of HB246 would strike a major blow to the surveillance state and would be a win for privacy.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB246 now moves to the House for further consideration. It was referred to the <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Committees/Details?cmte=jud" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House Judiciary Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> State Bills Stingrays cell site simulator Maryland Privacy SB246 stingray surveillance Mike Maharrey Ban Facial Recognition: Status Report from States and Cities https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/ban-facial-recognition-status-report-from-states-and-cities/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:1f7118d6-ec53-9c9a-23b2-83fb4c6e8fe6 Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:54:51 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/ban-facial-recognition-status-report-from-states-and-cities/" title="Ban Facial Recognition: Status Report from States and Cities" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />It&#8217;s virtually impossible to use facial recognition surveillance under a standard of getting a warrant based on probable cause &#8211; and describing the person or place to be searched or seized. It&#8217;s indiscriminate and broad but a number of states and localities are taking steps to restrict or end this practice. Path to Liberty, Fast [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/ban-facial-recognition-status-report-from-states-and-cities/" title="Ban Facial Recognition: Status Report from States and Cities" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>It&#8217;s virtually impossible to use facial recognition surveillance under a standard of getting a warrant based on probable cause &#8211; and describing the person or place to be searched or seized. It&#8217;s indiscriminate and broad but a number of states and localities are taking steps to restrict or end this practice.</p> <p>Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: February 21, 2020<span id="more-34288"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/RO_aK1FO-gQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>PODCAST VERSION</strong></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">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&amp;isi=691797987&amp;ius=googleplaymusic&amp;apn=com.google.android.music&amp;link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ic7vaa26zzqtt2zmxovxwkxktem?t%3DPath_to_Liberty%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Play</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></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://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/25/fourth-amendment-history-behind-unreasonable/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Fourth Amendment: The History Behind “Unreasonable”</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/31/local-state-and-federal-law-enforcement-partnering-to-create-massive-facial-recognition-system/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Local, State and Federal Law Enforcement Partnering to Create Massive Facial Recognition System</a></p> <p>State Bill of Rights: <a href="https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Texas</a>, <a href="https://malegislature.gov/laws/constitution" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Massachusetts</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-hampshire-house-passes-bill-to-ban-facial-recognition/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">New Hampshire House Passes Bill to Ban Facial Recognition</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/washington-state-senate-passes-bill-to-end-ongoing-warrantless-facial-recognition-surveillance/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Washington State Senate Passes Bill to End Ongoing Warrantless Facial Recognition Surveillance</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/idaho-bill-would-place-limits-on-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Idaho Bill Would Place Limits on Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-york-bill-would-prohibit-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">New York Bill Would Prohibit Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/massachusetts-committee-holds-hearing-on-bills-to-put-moratorium-on-police-use-of-facial-recognition/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Massachusetts Committee Holds Hearing on Bills to Put Moratorium on Police Use of Facial Recognition</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/new-jersey-bill-would-restrict-government-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">New Jersey Bill Would Restrict Government Use of Facial Recognition Technology</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/11/south-carolina-bill-would-ban-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">South Carolina Bill Would Ban Facial Recognition on Police Body Cameras</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/san-diego-shuts-down-massive-facial-recognition-system-to-comply-with-new-california-law/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">San Diego Shuts Down Massive Facial Recognition System to Comply With New California Law</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/seven-and-counting-cambridge-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Seven and Counting: Cambridge Massachusetts Passes Facial Recognition Ban</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/denver-activists-working-to-put-facial-recognition-ban-on-the-ballot/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Denver Activists Working to Put Facial Recognition Ban on the Ballot</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/3663728c-4e9e-445c-b139-874882451705" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/XDO7nc02xHJ1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/9b525dad-013c-4758-9048-f9214b19e07f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/555572887" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter/videos/526195064694348/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+ZPxznsQWR" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video Facial Recognition Path to Liberty State Bills Surveillance 4th Amendment facial recognition Privacy surveillance Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 15:25 It’s virtually impossible to use facial recognition surveillance under a standard of getting a warrant based on probable cause – and describing the person or place to be searched or seized. It’s indiscriminate and broad but a number of states and local... It’s virtually impossible to use facial recognition surveillance under a standard of getting a warrant based on probable cause – and describing the person or place to be searched or seized. It’s indiscriminate and broad but a number of states and localities are taking steps to restrict or end this practice. Path to Liberty, Fast […] Kentucky House Passes Bill to Legalize Medical Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/kentucky-house-passes-bill-to-legalize-medical-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ce4d37b5-e7a6-baf6-41f1-aba220f46150 Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:44:08 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/kentucky-house-passes-bill-to-legalize-medical-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" title="Kentucky House Passes Bill to Legalize Medical Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/shutterstock_269699045-kentucky-welcome-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/shutterstock_269699045-kentucky-welcome-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/shutterstock_269699045-kentucky-welcome-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/shutterstock_269699045-kentucky-welcome-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/shutterstock_269699045-kentucky-welcome-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />FRANKFORT, Ky. (Feb. 21, 2020) &#8211; On Thursday, the Kentucky House passed a bill to legalize medical marijuana in the state despite federal prohibition on the same. Rep. Jason Nemes (R-Louisville) introduced House Bill 136 (HB136) on Jan. 7. The legislation would legalize medical marijuana for patients with qualifying conditions, including AIDs, autism spectrum disorder; [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/kentucky-house-passes-bill-to-legalize-medical-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" title="Kentucky House Passes Bill to Legalize Medical Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/shutterstock_269699045-kentucky-welcome-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/shutterstock_269699045-kentucky-welcome-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/shutterstock_269699045-kentucky-welcome-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/shutterstock_269699045-kentucky-welcome-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/shutterstock_269699045-kentucky-welcome-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>FRANKFORT</strong>, Ky. (Feb. 21, 2020) &#8211; On Thursday, the Kentucky House passed a bill to legalize medical marijuana in the state despite federal prohibition on the same.<span id="more-34282"></span></p> <p>Rep. Jason Nemes (R-Louisville) introduced House Bill 136 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/KY/bill/HB136/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB136</a>) on Jan. 7. The legislation would legalize medical marijuana for patients with qualifying conditions, including AIDs, autism spectrum disorder; chronic pain; Crohn&#8217;s Disease; epilepsy or another seizure disorder; glaucoma; inflammatory bowel disease; intractable spasticity; multiple sclerosis; opioid use disorder; Parkinson’s disease; and PTSD.</p> <p>HB136 would create a regulatory framework for dispensaries and cultivation of medicinal cannabis. The Department of Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Control would implement and regulate the program.</p> <p>The House passed HB136 by a 65-30 vote.</p> <p>There were several compromises in the bill, including a ban on smoking marijuana and a provision allowing counties to opt-out of the program.</p> <p>After the bill passed, Nemes <a href="https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/ky-legislature/2020/02/20/kentucky-house-passes-medical-marijuana-bill-historic-vote/4819639002/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">told reporters</a>, &#8220;We have momentum, but we&#8217;re not there yet.&#8221; He credited grassroots activists for helping push the bill through the House.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;This bill is about love. These advocates are working their tails off because they love the people who will be helped by this. They love their spouses, they love their children.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>The bill will face an uphill battle in the Senate. A number of prominent Republicans have expressed reservations about the bill. Senate President Robert Stivers (R-Manchester) has said he thinks there needs to be more research on the effects of cannabis.</p> <p>Kentucky could become the 34th state to legalize marijuana for medical use despite ongoing federal prohibition.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>Legalization of medical cannabis would remove a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the Bluegrass State, but federal prohibition would remain in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Kentucky joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB136 will now move to the Senate for further consideration. At the time of this report, the bill had not been referred to a Senate committee. Once it is assigned to a committee, it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. If you live in Kentucky, you can support the passage of this bill by contacting Senate President Robert Stivers. Politely but firmly ask him to move the legislation through the process. You can find <a href="https://legislature.ky.gov/Legislators/Pages/Legislator-Profile.aspx?DistrictNumber=125" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">his contact information here</a>.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Drug War State Bills cannabis HB136 Kentucky Marijuana Mike Maharrey Minnesota Bill Would Limit Drone Surveillance https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/minnesota-bill-would-limit-drone-surveillance/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:5cf37032-fa72-f899-4c70-388877ef7488 Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:43:40 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/minnesota-bill-would-limit-drone-surveillance/" title="Minnesota Bill Would Limit Drone Surveillance" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />ST PAUL, Minn. (Feb. 21, 2020) – A bill introduced in the Minnesota House would limit warrantless drone surveillance. The legislation would not only establish important privacy protections at the state level; it would also help thwart the federal surveillance state. I bipartisan coalition of four Democrats and two Republicans introduced House Bill 3009 (HF3009) [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/minnesota-bill-would-limit-drone-surveillance/" title="Minnesota Bill Would Limit Drone Surveillance" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/12/drone-grayscale-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>ST PAUL</strong>, Minn. (Feb. 21, 2020) – A bill introduced in the Minnesota House would limit warrantless drone surveillance. The legislation would not only establish important privacy protections at the state level; it would also help thwart the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-34268"></span></p> <p>I bipartisan coalition of four Democrats and two Republicans introduced House Bill 3009 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MN/bill/HF3009/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HF3009</a>) on Feb. 11. The legislation would require law enforcement agencies to get a warrant before deploying a drone in most situations. It would also prohibit the use of facial recognition technology on a drone unless the warrant specifically authorizes it and impose a complete ban on armed drones.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, a law enforcement agency would be required to get local government approval before acquiring a drone.</p> <p>HF3009 also includes restrictions on the retention and sharing of data gathered by a drone.</p> <p>Information obtained or collected by a law enforcement agency in violation of the law would not admissible as evidence in a criminal, administrative, or civil proceeding against the data subject.</p> <p>The bill does include several exceptions to the warrant requirement. Police could deploy a drone without a warrant during an operation in an emergency situation that involves a reasonably likely threat to the life or safety of a person; over a public event where there is a heightened risk to the safety of participants or bystanders; to counter the risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the agency determines that credible intelligence indicates a risk; during natural disasters; to conduct threat assessments; for crash reconstruction; to collect information from a public area if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; for training purposes; and for non-law enforcement purposes.</p> <p><strong>Impact on the Federal Surveillance State</strong></p> <p>Although the proposed law would only apply to state and local drone use, it throws a high hurdle in front of some federal programs.</p> <p>According to <a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/dronesunmanned-aerial-vehicles" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation</a>, drones can be equipped with various types of surveillance equipment that can collect high definition video and still images day and night. Drones can be equipped with technology allowing them to intercept cell phone calls, determine GPS locations, and gather license plate information. Drones can be used to determine whether individuals are carrying guns. Synthetic-aperture radar can identify changes in the landscape, such as footprints and tire tracks. Some drones are even equipped with facial recognition. According to research from the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, 347 U.S. police, sheriff, fire, and emergency response units acquired drones between 2009 and early 2017—primarily sheriff’s offices and local police departments. As EFF put it, “Drones pose a multitude of privacy risks because they can amass large amounts of data on private citizens, including those engaging in constitutionally protected activity, even if they have not been accused of a crime.”</p> <p>Much of the funding for drones at the state and local level comes from the federal government, in and of itself a constitutional violation. In return, federal agencies tap into the information gathered by state and local law enforcement through 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>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.</p> <p>The federal government encourages and funds a network of drones at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on drone use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.</p> <p>Currently, at least 19 states—Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin—require law enforcement agencies in certain circumstances to obtain a search warrant to use drones for surveillance or to conduct a search.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HF3009 was referred to the <a href="https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/committees/home/91028" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Division</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Drones State Bills drone Fourth Amendment HF3009 Minnesota Privacy surveillance UAV Mike Maharrey To the Governor: Wisconsin Bill Would Set Stage to Expand Healthcare Freedom https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/to-the-governor-wisconsin-bill-would-set-stage-to-expand-healthcare-freedom/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:c745c931-daf9-d062-2c54-74e3e5377d36 Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:39:07 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/to-the-governor-wisconsin-bill-would-set-stage-to-expand-healthcare-freedom/" title="To the Governor: Wisconsin Bill Would Set Stage to Expand Healthcare Freedom" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />MADISON, Wisc. (Feb. 21, 2020) – Yesterday, the Wisconsin Senate gave final approval to a bill that would facilitate healthcare freedom outside of government insurance regulatory schemes. Rep Joe Sanfelippo (R – New Berlin) and a large coalition of Republican cosponsors introduced Assembly Bill 26 (AB26) in February. The legislation specifies that direct primary care [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/to-the-governor-wisconsin-bill-would-set-stage-to-expand-healthcare-freedom/" title="To the Governor: Wisconsin Bill Would Set Stage to Expand Healthcare Freedom" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/bigstock-Wisconsin-USA-flag-waving-on-58998176-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>MADISON</strong>, Wisc. (Feb. 21, 2020) – Yesterday, the Wisconsin Senate gave final approval to a bill that would facilitate healthcare freedom outside of government insurance regulatory schemes.<span id="more-34283"></span></p> <p>Rep Joe Sanfelippo (R – New Berlin) and a large coalition of Republican cosponsors introduced Assembly Bill 26 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WI/bill/AB26/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">AB26</a>) in February. The legislation specifies that direct primary care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code.</p> <p>The bill also includes provisions defining direct primary care agreements and establishing modest requirements.</p> <p>On Feb. 20, the Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/WI/rollcall/AB26/id/927989" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">approved AB26 by a 20-13 vote</a>. The Assembly previously passed the measure <a href="https://legiscan.com/WI/rollcall/AB26/id/903951" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">by a 61-36 vote</a>. It now goes to Gov. Tony Evers&#8217; desk for his consideration.</p> <p>According to <em>Michigan Capitol Confidential</em>, by removing a third party payer from the equation, medical retainer agreements help both physicians and patients minimize costs. Jack Spencer <a href="http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/20924" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">writes</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>“Under medical retainer agreements, patients make monthly payments to a physician who in return agrees to provide a menu of routine services at no extra charge. Because no insurance company stands between patient and doctor, the hassles and expense of bureaucratic red tape are eliminated, which have resulted in dramatic cost reductions. Routine primary care services (and the bureaucracy required to reimburse them) are estimated to consume 40 cents out of every dollar spent on insurance policies, so lower premiums for a given amount of coverage are another potential benefit.”</p></blockquote> <p>This represents the kind of cost control Obamacare promised but failed to deliver. In 2015, Tom Woods <a href="http://tomwoods.com/blog/capitalism-vs-american-health-care/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">interviewed a Kansas doctor</a> who utilizes the direct primary care model. Dr. Josh Umbehr’s practice demonstrates the cost savings possible when doctors are unfettered from the bureaucratic health insurance system.</p> <p>Under Obamacare, regulations define such programs as a primary care service and not a health insurance plan, and current IRS policy treats these monthly fee arrangements just like another health plan.</p> <p><strong>A FIRST STEP</strong></p> <p>Even while controlling both houses of Congress, the Republicans never did repeal Obamacare. And if they had passed one of their bills, the changes to the ACA proposed by the GOP would have arguably made things worse. Even with the penalty for not buying health insurance repealed by the Republican tax plan, all other Obamacare rules and regulations remain in place. Regardless, <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/01/08/states-should-help-bring-down-obamacare/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state actions can help completely bring down the Affordable Care Act</a>, or any national healthcare plan the Congress comes up with in the future.</p> <p>Oftentimes, supporters of Obamacare criticize opponents for not having any alternative. Direct primary care offers one.</p> <p>These direct patient/doctor agreements allow a system uncontrolled by government regulations to develop. It makes doctors responsive to patients, not insurance company bureaucrats or government rule-makers. Allowing patients to contract directly with doctors via medical retainer agreements opens the market. Under such agreements, market forces will set prices for services based on demand instead of relying on central planners with a political agenda. The end result will be better care delivered at a lower cost.</p> <p>By incentivizing creative healthcare solutions, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/markets-and-individual-action-helping-to-undermine-obamacare/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the market will naturally provide better options, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma</a>, This facility operates completely outside of the insurance system, providing a low-cost alternative for many surgical procedures.</p> <p>A more open healthcare marketplace within a state will help spur de facto nullification of the federal program by providing an affordable alternative. As patients flock to these arrangements and others spurred by ingenuity and market forces, the old system will begin to crumble.</p> <p>Enactment of AB26 would take the first step toward healthcare freedom in Wisconsin and create a stepping stone to further action to nullify the onerous Affordable Care act. With this new law in place, the people of Wisconsin could take further steps to fully extricate themselves from Obamacare for good.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>Gov. Evers will have six days from the date AB26 is transmitted to his office to sign or veto the bill. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Health Care State Bills AB26 Direct Primary Care Healthcare Obamacare Wisconsin Mike Maharrey Trump is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, but Something Else is Far More Important https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/trump-is-the-chief-law-enforcement-officer-but-something-else-is-far-more-important/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:00c86f7d-4698-56c7-8f57-7c1c78b0ad7d Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:36:59 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/trump-is-the-chief-law-enforcement-officer-but-something-else-is-far-more-important/" title="Trump is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, but Something Else is Far More Important" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-768x402.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-1024x536.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-191x100.png 191w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-50x26.png 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-75x39.png 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Who is the chief law enforcement officer under the U.S. Constitution? President Trump claimed the title, and a predictable collective freakout ensued. Political theatre like this is designed to keep the actual truth hidden. “I’m allowed to be totally involved. I’m actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country. But I’ve chosen [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/trump-is-the-chief-law-enforcement-officer-but-something-else-is-far-more-important/" title="Trump is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, but Something Else is Far More Important" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-768x402.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-1024x536.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-191x100.png 191w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-50x26.png 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-75x39.png 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Investment-risk-and-uncertaint-82493891-1200-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Who is the chief law enforcement officer under the U.S. Constitution? President Trump claimed the title, and a predictable collective freakout ensued. Political theatre like this is designed to keep the actual truth hidden.<span id="more-34280"></span></p> <p>“I’m allowed to be totally involved. I’m actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country. But I’ve chosen not to be involved,” Trump told the press Tuesday.</p> <p>A barrage of hysterics then broke out, the familiar self-righteous indignation from the media. Breaking news alert: Trump is lying!</p> <p>Could have knocked me over with a feather.</p> <p>Seriously, the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/post-impeachment-trump-declares-himself-the-chief-law-enforcement-officer-of-america/2020/02/18/b8ff49c0-5290-11ea-b119-4faabac6674f_story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Washington Post</a>, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxezk9/trump-just-declared-himself-the-sheriff-of-america" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Vice</a>, and <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2020/2/19/headlines/trump_falsely_claims_he_is_chief_law_enforcement_officer_of_us" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Democracy Now!</a> all sounded uncannily similar. That happens when there’s little to no substance, just fodder for social media.</p> <p>The U.S. attorney general, not the president, is the rightful chief law enforcement officer of the federal government, we’re generally told. But is this what the U.S. Constitution says?</p> <p>Bear with me. There’s a plot twist coming up!</p> <p>Article II of the Constitution covers the executive branch, leading off with what is known as the Vesting Clause: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”</p> <p>Of course, there are various interpretations of that clause, but it is significant to note that it preexists the Office of the Attorney General <em>created by Congress</em> in its first meeting through the Judiciary Act of 1789.</p> <p>Could the Legislative Branch dictate to the Executive who its chief law enforcer is?</p> <p>For what it’s worth, the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/ag/about-office" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Justice Department’s website</a> tells us that the U.S. attorney general position “evolved over the years into&#8230;chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government.”</p> <p>Perhaps what’s most revealing about Trump and the media is that they each conflate law enforcement with the law itself. They just disagree on which singular, Washington D.C.-based demigod exerts the power.</p> <p>Thankfully, the founders were more thoughtful.</p> <p>The most fundamental enforcement of the law in the U.S. is adherence to the Constitution. It doesn’t matter if the chief enforcement officer is the president, attorney general, or any other government agent.</p> <p>This is because, at its heart, the Constitution is about limiting the power of the federal government. All the founders were aware of the propensity of governments to expand beyond their created purpose. Most quotable here are James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.</p> <p>In Federalist #48, Madison wrote that “experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defence is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful members of the government.”</p> <p>That “more adequate defence” is extrapolated by Hamilton in Federalist #28.</p> <p>“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority,” he wrote.</p> <p>In other words, <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/06/20/a-parchment-barrier-needs-enforcement/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the Constitution does not enforce itself</a>. Having a “chief law enforcement officer” doesn’t solve the problem either. Trump, after all, is also the chief gun control enforcement officer.</p> <p>Effectively, the chief law enforcer is who has the final say. Nullification from the state and local level against unconstitutional federal acts <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/report/">have a proven record of success</a>. More than ever, the American people should be reminded of their duty to <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/12/15/james-madison-how-to-stop-the-federal-government/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">push back in this fashion</a>.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Current Events Attorney General Constitution Donald Trump law enforcement Nick Hankoff The new ERA campaign: constitutional malware https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/20/the-new-era-campaign-constitutional-malware/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:5c7ad639-e6f0-30fc-1c89-91a5ce1bdab5 Fri, 21 Feb 2020 01:14:30 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/20/the-new-era-campaign-constitutional-malware/" title="The new ERA campaign: constitutional malware" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Computer hackers spread malware to create havoc. Sometimes their goal is evil satisfaction and sometimes financial gain. Some political activists spread political malware for similar purposes. They sow havoc because it offers ego-building publicity, and opportunities for fund raising, organizing, and dramatic lawsuits. Hence the campaign to resurrect the long-expired “equal rights amendment” or ERA. [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/20/the-new-era-campaign-constitutional-malware/" title="The new ERA campaign: constitutional malware" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Computer hackers spread malware to create havoc. Sometimes their goal is evil satisfaction and sometimes financial gain. Some political activists spread political malware for similar purposes. They sow havoc because it offers ego-building publicity, and opportunities for fund raising, organizing, and dramatic lawsuits. Hence the campaign to resurrect the long-expired “equal rights amendment” or ERA.</p> <p>The campaign’s activists <a href="https://www.equalitynow.org/era">assert</a> that “women are not protected by the U.S. Constitution,” which, of course, is an <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2015/11/originalism-and-female-presidents-againmichael-ramsey.html">utter falsehood</a>. Moreover, they claim, if only three more states ratify the ERA, it will become part of the Constitution, thereby assuring equal rights. As explained below, that is also false.</p> <p>The incentives behind the campaign are obvious. The ERA is poorly drafted and vague (which is why it was rejected). If it became part of the Constitution, the result would be legal chaos. Activists know they would be able to feed off that chaos with lucrative lawsuits, direct mail fundraising, and publicity. If, as is overwhelmingly probable, the courts re-affirm that the ERA is dead, then the same activists can organize campaigns attacking the courts and promoting or opposing judicial nominees.</p> <p>ERA activists have won the endorsement of two of the three states they seek by gulling the Nevada and Illinois legislatures into “ratifying” the expired amendment. They now are targeting Virginia. [Author’s note: Since this article was written, Virginia has also “ratified.”]</p> <p>Perhaps because this scam seems so far-fetched, response has been belated. But in December, <a href="https://atg.sd.gov/docs/ERA%20Complaint.pdf">three states sued</a> to stop the Archivist of the United States from accepting ERA “ratifications.” On January 6, the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel <a href="http://articlevinfocenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/OLS-ERA-op.pdf">advised</a> the Archivist to the same effect. Now state lawmakers should terminate the game by refusing to play.</p> <p>Here is the background:</p> <p>To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by Congress or by a <a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/Natelson-CoS-final.pdf">convention of the states</a>, and then ratified by 38 states. When members of Congress first considered the ERA, they found its language appealing: Section 1 proclaimed that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Section 2 granted Congress broad new power to enforce the amendment. In 1972, Congress proposed the ERA to the states on condition that full ratification must occur by 1979.</p> <p>At first, state legislatures ratified quickly. But then they began to notice how poorly drafted the ERA was and how much anguish it would cause. For beneath the amendment’s simple surface lurked constitutional, political, and social nightmares.</p> <p>For example, the ERA uses the word “rights” without regard to the fact that “right” has many legal meanings. When the existing constitutional text employs the word, the text describes the right, or kind of right, intended. Thus, the Constitution protects the “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “the right . . . to keep and bear arms,” and so forth. By contrast, the ERA contains no defining or explanatory language.</p> <p>The ERA mandates “equality.” But that, too, has many meanings. The amendment would provoke endless litigation on such issues as: May state offices maintain separate bathrooms for men and women? (There are plenty of judicial decisions holding that separate is never equal.) May the federal government draft men but not women? Is there a “right” to be drafted? To not be drafted? Must a state office grant pregnancy leave? If it grants pregnancy leave to women, must it grant pregnancy leave to men? Or is granting leave to both unequal because women become pregnant and men do not? No one knows how the ERA would resolve these or a multiplicity of other questions.</p> <p>As the 1970s wore on, state lawmakers became aware that the ERA was the proverbial pig in the poke. By adopting it, they would be replicating experience with parts of the 14<sup>th</sup> amendment, whose drafting defects have spawned doubt, litigation, and shifting court opinions for over 150 years. (Despite claims to the contrary, most of the Constitution is <a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-original-constitution-robert-natelson/1026762475">fairly precise</a>.) State lawmakers learned that the ERA would license unelected judges to legislate extensively and grant Congress sweeping power to interfere in state governance.</p> <p>The pace of state ratifications slowed. Then it stopped. Then it shifted into reverse as states began to rescind. Congress attempted to extend the deadline from 1979 to 1982—an action a federal court <a href="http://articlevinfocenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1981-ID-v-Freeman-D.Id_.pdf">correctly ruled</a> unconstitutional. Still, not a single additional state signed on. By the extended deadline, only 30 of the 38 required states had ratified: 35 initial ratifications, minus five rescissions.</p> <p>More states might have rescinded, but ERA advocates, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg (now Justice Ginsburg), acknowledged defeat. In recognition that the ERA was dead, the Supreme Court dismissed pending ERA litigation as moot.</p> <p>And there matters rested until activists invented their renewed “ratification” campaign. Of course, their campaign requires them to pretend the ERA is not dead, so they claim—</p> <p>*         That Congress’s deadlines for ratification are ineffective and the ERA lasts forever;</p> <p>*         That, assuming deadlines to be effective, deadlines must be the body of the amendment rather than (as in the ERA) in the resolution’s introduction;</p> <p>*         That Congress may extend deadlines retroactively;</p> <p>*         That <em>every</em> state ratification counts, no matter how late; but</p> <p>*         That <em>no</em> state rescission counts, no matter how timely.</p> <p>The first assertion contradicts settled Supreme Court authority. The second disregards settled practice, the resolution’s wording, and the trend of modern court decisions.</p> <p>The third—that Congress may create a new retroactive deadline—violates all constitutional understanding. As the Office of Legal Services pointed out, it is like saying that if the president vetoes a bill in 1980 and Congress fails to override it, then Congress may try to override it again forty years later.</p> <p>The fourth assertion—that we must count ratifications passed after the deadline—disregards the Supreme Court ruling that Congress may impose a deadline.</p> <p>The fifth—that rescissions don’t count—is flawed because (1) it is based on non-binding court language since widely repudiated, (2) it contradicts universal legislative practice, (3) it contradicts the <a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/Conventions-FLR.pdf">historical practice</a> on which the Constitution’s amendment process was based, and (4) it contradicts a federal court decision directly on point.</p> <p>Where did the ERA activists get their constitutional gibberish? Believe it or not, their source was, according to one of their <a href="https://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq">website</a><u>s</u>, a 1997 school paper written by three law students. Perhaps no reputable lawyer would sign on.</p> <p>Ratification today would be even more pointless and irresponsible than it was in the 1970s: pointless, because the courts now recognize full gender equality; irresponsible, because the amendment poses even more problems now than in 1972. For example, should courts interpret the ERA as understood in the 1970s or as understood when finally ratified? In 1972 the phrase “on account of sex” referred to men and women. Today judges might interpret it to include other alleged genders. No one has any idea of what direction the courts would go in applying the ERA.</p> <p>The campaign to raise the ERA zombie is the height of constitutional and civic irresponsibility. State legislators should reject it with the contempt it deserves.</p> <p><strong>A version of this article <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-new-era-campaign-constitutional-malware_3200106.html">first appeared</a> in the January 10, 2020 <em>Epoch Times</em>.</strong></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Current Events Equal Rights Amendment ERA Rob Natelson Washington State Senate Passes Bill to End Ongoing Warrantless Facial Recognition Surveillance https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/washington-state-senate-passes-bill-to-end-ongoing-warrantless-facial-recognition-surveillance/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:c755bad8-6042-65af-5085-5457392c2af7 Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:28:31 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/washington-state-senate-passes-bill-to-end-ongoing-warrantless-facial-recognition-surveillance/" title="Washington State Senate Passes Bill to End Ongoing Warrantless Facial Recognition Surveillance" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />OLYMPIA, Wash. (Feb. 20, 2020) &#8211; Yesterday, the Washington state Senate passed a bill that would require a warrant for ongoing facial recognition surveillance. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in Washington state; it would take a step toward hindering one aspect of the federal surveillance state. A coalition of 10 Democrats [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/washington-state-senate-passes-bill-to-end-ongoing-warrantless-facial-recognition-surveillance/" title="Washington State Senate Passes Bill to End Ongoing Warrantless Facial Recognition Surveillance" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>OLYMPIA</strong>, Wash. (Feb. 20, 2020) &#8211; Yesterday, the Washington state Senate passed a bill that would require a warrant for ongoing facial recognition surveillance. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in Washington state; it would take a step toward hindering one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-34276"></span><br /> A coalition of 10 Democrats introduced Senate Bill 6280 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/bill/SB6280/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB6280</a>) on Jan. 14. The legislation would ban government agencies from using facial recognition for “ongoing surveillance” without a warrant in most situations. This would include using facial recognition technology to scan crowds, streets or neighborhoods.</p> <p>The Senate passed SB6280 <a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/rollcall/SB6280/id/927029" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">by a 30-18 vote</a>. The vote was largely along party lines with 17 Republican no-votes. Sen. Curtis King was the only Republican to vote in favor of the bill.</p> <p>The proposed law also bans the use of facial recognition solely based on an individuals religious, political, or social views or activities; participation in a particular noncriminal organization or lawful event; or actual or perceived race, ethnicity, citizenship, place of origin, age, disability, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other characteristic protected by law.</p> <p>In addition to the warrant requirement, SB6280 would require law enforcement agencies to develop and make public a detailed “accountability report” outlining its use of facial recognition technology before using it, along with annual reporting procedures. This would create transparency of facial recognition programs and make it easier for activists to fight abuses. As the old saying goes, sunshine is the best disinfectant.</p> <p>Although SB6280 would not totally ban the use of facial recognition technology, it would take an important step toward limiting its use in Washington state. As it currently stands, Washington law enforcement agencies can use facial recognition technology with no restrictions and in complete secrecy.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>A <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recent report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/31/local-state-and-federal-law-enforcement-partnering-to-create-massive-facial-recognition-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a massive, nationwide facial recognition system</a> for years.</p> <p>The FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.</p> <p>In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at <a href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">perpetuallineup.org</a>. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.</p> <blockquote><p>“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/study-lack-of-face-recognition-oversight-threatens-privacy-of-millions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clare Garvie said</a>. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”</p></blockquote> <p>There are <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">many technical and legal problems</a> with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8wa8/amazons-facial-recognition-misidentified-1-in-5-california-lawmakers-as-criminals" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature</a> as people in a database of arrest photos.</p> <p>With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.</p> <p>In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras</a> equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of state laws and local ordinances banning and limiting facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB6280 will now move to the House for further consideration. At the time of this report, it had not been referred to a House committee. Once it gets a committee assignment, it will need to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Facial Recognition State Bills biometric surviellance facial recognition Fourth Amendment Privacy SB6280 Washington Mike Maharrey New Hampshire House Passes Bill to Legalize Possession and Home Cultivation of Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-hampshire-house-passes-bill-to-legalize-possession-and-home-cultivation-of-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:fe527500-9fcd-5a05-d67d-a40f003deeb5 Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:53:40 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-hampshire-house-passes-bill-to-legalize-possession-and-home-cultivation-of-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" title="New Hampshire House Passes Bill to Legalize Possession and Home Cultivation of Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-Live-Free-669528-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-Live-Free-669528-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-Live-Free-669528-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-Live-Free-669528-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-Live-Free-669528-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />CONCORD, N.H. (Feb. 20, 2020) &#8211; Yesterday, the New Hampshire House passed a bill that would legalize personal possession and cultivation of marijuana in the state, despite federal prohibition on the same. A bipartisan coalition of representatives introduced House Bill 1648 (HB1648) on Jan. 8. The legislation would allow adults over 21 to possess 3/4 [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-hampshire-house-passes-bill-to-legalize-possession-and-home-cultivation-of-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" title="New Hampshire House Passes Bill to Legalize Possession and Home Cultivation of Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-Live-Free-669528-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-Live-Free-669528-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-Live-Free-669528-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-Live-Free-669528-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/bigstock-Live-Free-669528-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>CONCORD</strong>, N.H. (Feb. 20, 2020) &#8211; Yesterday, the New Hampshire House passed a bill that would legalize personal possession and cultivation of marijuana in the state, despite federal prohibition on the same.<span id="more-34278"></span></p> <p>A bipartisan coalition of representatives introduced House Bill 1648 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB1648/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB1648</a>) on Jan. 8. The legislation would allow adults over 21 to possess 3/4 of an ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants in their homes. Under the proposed law, individuals would also be able to give up to 3/4 of an ounce of cannabis to another person. HB1648 would not authorize retail sales of marijuana.</p> <p>On Jan. 29, the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee advanced the measure with an ought-to-pass recommendation by a 13-7 vote. Yesterday, the full House passed the bill by a vote of 236-112.</p> <p>Renny Cushing (D-Hampton) is one of the bill sponsors. He <a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/new-hampshire-lawmakers-approve-marijuana-legalization-bill/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">said</a> he thinks the legalization of cannabis is more popular than the legislature itself or the governor or any other political entity in the state of New Hampshire.</p> <blockquote><p>“This is something that the people of the state of New Hampshire want. They don’t want to be treated like they’re criminals if they have a plant.”</p></blockquote> <p>Matt Simon, New England political director for the <a href="https://www.mpp.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Marijuana Policy Project</a> (MPP), told <a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/new-hampshire-house-approves-marijuana-legalization-bill/">Marijuana Moment</a> that with the House’s passage, the bill now faces “a more difficult challenge” before the Senate. But given the strong public support for legalization, he said, it’s time for lawmakers to move.</p> <p>“It makes no sense for the ‘Live Free or Die’ state to continue punishing adults for growing and possessing cannabis,” he said. “The Senate should join the House in passing HB 1648, and Governor Sununu should recognize that it’s time to bring New Hampshire’s cannabis laws more nearly into line with neighboring states.”</p> <p>These efforts to legalize marijuana in New Hampshire continue to move forward despite ongoing federal prohibition.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>Despite federal prohibition, New Hampshire legalized medical marijuana in 2013 and has since expanded the program. In September 2017, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/09/now-in-effect-new-hampshire-law-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a law decriminalizing simple marijuana possession went into effect</a>, and the state followed up by <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/signed-as-law-new-hampshire-bill-creates-process-to-expunge-some-marijuana-charges/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">creating a process to expunge some marijuana charges</a> last year.</p> <p>Passage of HB1648 would remove yet another layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in New Hampshire, but federal prohibition would remain in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Should the bill pass, New Hampshire will join a growing number of states increasingly ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats.</p> <p>The push to legalize recreational marijuana in New Hampshire underscores another important strategic reality. Once a state legalizes marijuana – even if only in a very limited way – it tends to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand expands. That creates pressure to further relax state law. These new laws represent a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB1648 will now move to the Senate, where it will first need to pass out of committee before the full chamber can consider it.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Drug War State Bills HB1648 Home Cultivation Marijuana Marijuana Legalization New Hampshire War on Drugs Michael Boldin Alabama Committee Passes Bill to Legalize Medical Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/alabama-committee-passes-bill-legalize-medical-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:75c35cf1-427f-51cc-8109-12aeaa552541 Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:46:28 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/alabama-committee-passes-bill-legalize-medical-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" title="Alabama Committee Passes Bill to Legalize Medical Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />MONTGOMERY, Ala. (Feb. 20, 2020) &#8211; On Wednesday, an Alabama Senate committee passed a bill to legalize medical marijuana in the state despite federal prohibtion. Sen. Tim Melson (R-Florence) introduced Senate Bill 165 (SB165) on Feb. 11. The legislation would legalize medical marijuana for patients with qualifying conditions including anxiety, autism, cancer-related illnesses, Crohn’s Disease, [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/alabama-committee-passes-bill-legalize-medical-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" title="Alabama Committee Passes Bill to Legalize Medical Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/04/bigstock-Concept-Of-National-Healthcare-81688007-alabama-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>MONTGOMERY</strong>, Ala. (Feb. 20, 2020) &#8211; On Wednesday, an Alabama Senate committee passed a bill to legalize medical marijuana in the state despite federal prohibtion.<span id="more-34274"></span></p> <p>Sen. Tim Melson (R-Florence) introduced Senate Bill 165 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/SB165/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB165</a>) on Feb. 11. The legislation would legalize medical marijuana for patients with qualifying conditions including anxiety, autism, cancer-related illnesses, Crohn’s Disease, epilepsy, fibromyalgia, HIV/AIDS-related nausea or weight loss, post-traumatic stress disorder, sleep disorders, Tourette’s Syndrome and conditions causing chronic or intractable pain.</p> <p>SB165 would create the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission to regulate the patient registry and medical marijuana dispensaries. The state Department of Agriculture and Industries would oversee marijuana cultivation in the state.</p> <p>On Feb. 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB165 by an 8-1 vote.</p> <p>Law enforcement lobbyists opposed the legislation.</p> <p>Before the vote, <a href="https://yellowhammernews.com/medical-marijuana-bill-clears-alabama-senate-committee/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sen. Cam Ward described</a> his late father’s battle with cancer.</p> <blockquote><p>“I would have given anything, anything, had he had a tablet to take, something to chew on, some drops to put in his food to avoid the nauseousness from the chemotherapy. That would have changed his life. As a human being, who am I to say … you can’t have that to make you feel better?”</p></blockquote> <p>Alabama could become the 34th state to legalize cannabis for medical use despite ongoing federal prohibition.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>Legalization of medical cannabis would remove a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in Alabama, but federal prohibition would remain in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Alabama joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB165 will now move to the Senate floor for further consideration.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Drug War State Bills Alabama cannabis Marijuana SB165 Mike Maharrey New York Bill Would Prohibit Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-york-bill-would-prohibit-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:cd0adbb0-99af-9d54-6270-a649383732e2 Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:12:06 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-york-bill-would-prohibit-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/" title="New York Bill Would Prohibit Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />ALBANY, N.Y. (Feb 20, 2020) – A bill introduced in the New York Senate would ban police use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technologies. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in New York; it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state. Asm. Deborah Glick (D-NYC) and Asm. [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-york-bill-would-prohibit-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/" title="New York Bill Would Prohibit Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>ALBANY</strong>, N.Y. (Feb 20, 2020) – A bill introduced in the New York Senate would ban police use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technologies. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in New York; it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-34250"></span></p> <p>Asm. Deborah Glick (D-NYC) and Asm. Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn) introduced Assembly Bill 9767 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/A09767/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A9767</a>) on Feb. 11. It is a companion bill to Senate Bill 7572 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/S07572/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">S7572</a>), introduced by Sen. Brad Hoylman (D-Manhattan) last month.</p> <p>The legislation would ban state and local police in New York from acquiring, possessing, accessing, installing, activating or using any biometric surveillance system, or any biometric information or surveillance information derived from the use of a biometric surveillance system by any other entity. Under the proposed law, biometric surveillance systems include facial recognition technology, along with automated systems that can identify an individual through their voice, gait, retina scans and other biological data.</p> <p>The bill would not restrict the use of other existing lawful practices involving the use of biometric information by law enforcement, such as the state’s DNA index or fingerprints used in the state identification bureau.</p> <p>The New York Assembly is also considering <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/new-york-assembly-passes-bill-to-ban-facial-recognition-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">separate bills to ban facial recognition in schools</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/new-york-bill-would-ban-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">on police body cameras</a>.</p> <p>This legislation is part of a broader nationwide movement to limit this invasive surveillance technology at the local and state level. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/first-in-the-nation-san-francisco-passes-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">San Francisco</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/oakland-city-council-unanimously-approves-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oakland</a>, and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/four-and-counting-berkeley-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Berkeley</a>, California have all prohibited government use of facial recognition technology, along with  <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/second-in-the-nation-somerville-city-council-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Somerville</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/three-and-counting-northampton-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Northhampton</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/seven-and-counting-cambridge-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cambridge</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/brookline-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brookline</a>, Massachusetts.  <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/portland-oregon-considering-facial-recognition-technology-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Portland, Oregon</a> is considering a similar ban. The California governor recently <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/signed-as-law-california-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">signed a bill</a> that imposes a 3-year ban on the use of the tech in conjunction with police body-worn cameras, leading to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/san-diego-shuts-down-massive-facial-recognition-system-to-comply-with-new-california-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the shutdown of one of the biggest facial recognition programs in the country</a>.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>A <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recent report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/31/local-state-and-federal-law-enforcement-partnering-to-create-massive-facial-recognition-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a massive, nationwide facial recognition system</a> for years.</p> <p>The FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.</p> <p>In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at <a href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">perpetuallineup.org</a>. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.</p> <blockquote><p>“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/study-lack-of-face-recognition-oversight-threatens-privacy-of-millions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clare Garvie said</a>. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”</p></blockquote> <p>There are <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">many technical and legal problems</a> with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8wa8/amazons-facial-recognition-misidentified-1-in-5-california-lawmakers-as-criminals" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature</a> as people in a database of arrest photos.</p> <p>With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.</p> <p>In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras</a> equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of state laws and local ordinances banning 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>A9767 was referred to the <a href="https://assembly.state.ny.us/comm/?id=18" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Assembly Governmental Operations Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Facial Recognition State Bills A9787 biometric surveillance facial recognition Fourth Amendment New York Privacy Mike Maharrey Massachusetts Committee Passes Bill to Limit ALPR Use, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/massachusetts-committee-passes-bill-limit-alpr-use-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:fcd1439a-a7b3-50e1-7c4c-bafb1dd5108e Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:49:59 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/massachusetts-committee-passes-bill-limit-alpr-use-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking-program/" title="Massachusetts Committee Passes Bill to Limit ALPR Use, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-768x403.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-1024x537.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-1080x566.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />BOSTON, Mass. (Feb. 19, 2020) – Yesterday, a Massachusetts joint legislative committee passed a bill that would put strict limitations on the use of automated license plate reader systems (ALPRs) by the state. Passage into law would also place significant roadblocks in the way of a federal program using states to help track the location [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/massachusetts-committee-passes-bill-limit-alpr-use-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking-program/" title="Massachusetts Committee Passes Bill to Limit ALPR Use, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-768x403.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-1024x537.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-1080x566.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>BOSTON</strong>, Mass. (Feb. 19, 2020) – Yesterday, a Massachusetts joint legislative committee passed a bill that would put strict limitations on the use of automated license plate reader systems (ALPRs) by the state. Passage into law would also place significant roadblocks in the way of a federal program using states to help track the location of millions of everyday people through pictures of their license plates.<span id="more-34267"></span></p> <p>Rep. William Straus (D-Bristol) introduced House Bill 3141 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MA/bill/H3141/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">H3141</a>) last year and it carried over to the 2020 session. The legislation would restrict law enforcement use of <a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-readers-alpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ALPRs</a> to specific, enumerated &#8220;legitimate law enforcement purposes.&#8221; The proposed law would also put strict limitations on the retention and sharing of data gathered by license plate readers.</p> <p>On Feb. 18, the Joint Committee on Transportation passed H3141.</p> <p>Under the proposed law police would be required to permanently erase or destroy any ALPR data within its possession, custody or control within 48 hours of capturing it. Law enforcement agencies would have the option of transferring data to the state executive office of public safety and security. The executive office would be required to destroy data in its custody within 120 days. It could only retain data beyond that time under a judicially issued probable cause warrant, a production order or a preservation request issued in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a felony.</p> <p>H3141 includes provisions limiting the access, search, review, disclosure, or the exchange of ALPR data from any source.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, ALPR data produced, obtained or maintained in knowing violation of the statute could not be admitted, offered or cited by any governmental entity for any purpose in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding.</p> <p>Passage of H3141 would prevent the state from creating permanent databases using information collected by ALPRs, and would make it highly unlikely that such data would end up in federal databases and disseminated through federal <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/10/massachusetts-state-police-tweet-inadvertently-reveals-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">fusion centers</a>.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>As reported in the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spies-on-millions-of-cars-1422314779?autologin=y" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i>Wall Street Journal</i></a>, the federal government, via the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), tracks the location of millions of vehicles through data provided by ALPRs operated on a state and local level. They’ve engaged in this for nearly a decade, all without a warrant, or even public notice of the policy.</p> <p>State and local law enforcement agencies operate most of these tracking systems, paid for by federal grant money. The DEA then taps into the local database to track the whereabouts of millions of people – for the “crime” of driving – without having to operate a huge network itself.</p> <p>ALPRs can scan, capture and record thousands of license plates every minute and store them in massive databases, along with date, time and location information.</p> <p>Records <a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-reader-dataset" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation</a> (EFF) through open records requests encompassed information compiled by 200 law enforcement agencies that utilize ALPRs. The data revealed more than <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/2-5-billion-surveillance-state-goes-wild-good-morning-liberty-11-16-18/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2.5 billion license plate scans</a> in just two years (2016 and 2017).</p> <p>Perhaps more concerning, this gigantic sample of license plate scans reveals that 99.5 percent of this data was collected regardless of whether the vehicle or its owner were suspected of being involved in criminal activity. On average, agencies share this data with a minimum of <b>160 other agencies</b>. In some cases, agencies share this data with as many as <b>800 other agencies</b>.</p> <p>Police generally configure ALPRs to store the photograph, the license plate number, and the date, time, and location of a vehicle’s license plate, which is bad enough. But according to <a href="https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/071613-aclu-alprreport-opt-v05.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">records obtained by the ACLU</a> via a Freedom of Information Act request, these systems also capture photographs of drivers and their passengers.</p> <p>With the FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolling out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, and the federal government building <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a giant biometric database</a> with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends, the feds can potentially access stored photographs of drivers and passengers, along with detailed data revealing their location and activities. With this kind of information, government agents can easily find individuals without warrants or oversight, for any reason whatsoever.</p> <p>Since a majority of federal license plate tracking data comes from state and local law enforcement, laws banning or even restricting ALPR use are essential. As more states pass such laws, the end result becomes more clear. No data equals no federal license plate tracking program.</p> <p>Passage of H3141 would represent a good first step toward putting a big dent in federal plans to continue location tracking and expanding its facial recognition program. The less data that states make available to the federal government, the less ability it has to track people in Massachusetts and elsewhere.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>H3141 was referred to the <a href="https://malegislature.gov/Committees/Detail/H34" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House Ways and Means Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> License Plate Tracking State Bills ALPR automatic license plate reader Fourth Amendment H3141 Massachusetts Privacy surveillance Mike Maharrey New Hampshire House Passes Bill to Ban Facial Recognition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-hampshire-house-passes-bill-to-ban-facial-recognition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:03061ddf-86b5-26e1-4a63-d246cbb92fc7 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:17:00 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-hampshire-house-passes-bill-to-ban-facial-recognition/" title="New Hampshire House Passes Bill to Ban Facial Recognition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />CONCORD, N.H. (Feb. 19, 2020) &#8211; Today, the New Hampshire House approved a bill to ban government use of facial recognition surveillance technologies. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in New Hampshire; it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state. A bipartisan coalition of four Republicans, three Democrats and [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-hampshire-house-passes-bill-to-ban-facial-recognition/" title="New Hampshire House Passes Bill to Ban Facial Recognition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>CONCORD</strong>, N.H. (Feb. 19, 2020) &#8211; Today, the New Hampshire House approved a bill to ban government use of facial recognition surveillance technologies. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in New Hampshire; it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-34272"></span></p> <p>A bipartisan coalition of four Republicans, three Democrats and one Libertarian introduced House Bill 1642 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB1642/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB1642</a>) on Jan. 8. The legislation would ban the state and its political subdivisions from using facial recognition and would make any such information obtained in violation of the act inadmissible in court. It reads, in part:</p> <p>&#8220;Neither the state nor any state official shall obtain, retain, access, or use any face surveillance system or any information obtained from a face surveillance system.&#8221;</p> <p>Under the proposed law, even requests for facial recognition data from &#8220;an out-of-state face recognition system&#8221; would be prohibited.</p> <p>Last week, the House Executive Departments and Administration Committee advanced the measure with a vote of 18-2. Today, the full House approved the measure by a voice vote. The bill now moves to the House Judiciary committee for further consideration.</p> <p>This legislation is part of a broader nationwide movement to limit this invasive surveillance technology at the local and state level. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/first-in-the-nation-san-francisco-passes-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">San Francisco</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/oakland-city-council-unanimously-approves-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oakland</a>, and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/four-and-counting-berkeley-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Berkeley</a>, California have all prohibited government use of facial recognition technology, along with  <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/second-in-the-nation-somerville-city-council-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Somerville</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/three-and-counting-northampton-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Northhampton</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/seven-and-counting-cambridge-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cambridge</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/brookline-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brookline</a>, Massachusetts.  <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/portland-oregon-considering-facial-recognition-technology-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Portland, Oregon</a> is considering a similar ban. The California governor recently <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/signed-as-law-california-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">signed a bill</a> that imposes a 3-year ban on the use of the tech in conjunction with police body-worn cameras, leading to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/san-diego-shuts-down-massive-facial-recognition-system-to-comply-with-new-california-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the shutdown of one of the biggest facial recognition programs in the country</a>.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>A <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recent report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/31/local-state-and-federal-law-enforcement-partnering-to-create-massive-facial-recognition-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a massive, nationwide facial recognition system</a> for years.</p> <p>The FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.</p> <p>In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at <a href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">perpetuallineup.org</a>. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.</p> <blockquote><p>“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/study-lack-of-face-recognition-oversight-threatens-privacy-of-millions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clare Garvie said</a>. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”</p></blockquote> <p>There are <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">many technical and legal problems</a> with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8wa8/amazons-facial-recognition-misidentified-1-in-5-california-lawmakers-as-criminals" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature</a> as people in a database of arrest photos.</p> <p>With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.</p> <p>In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras</a> equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of state laws and local ordinances banning 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>HB164 now moves to the House Judiciary committee for further consideration. Should it pass there, the full House will have one more opportunity to debate the bill and give it a final vote in that chamber.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Facial Recognition State Bills Surveillance facial recognition HB1642 New Hampshire surveillance Michael Boldin California Cops Show Surveillance “Abolition” Needs to be Emphasized https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/california-cops-show-surveillance-abolition-needs-to-be-emphasized/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:9b2399b8-6466-3c8d-136f-ef48b00e64a3 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:51:11 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/california-cops-show-surveillance-abolition-needs-to-be-emphasized/" title="California Cops Show Surveillance &#8220;Abolition&#8221; Needs to be Emphasized" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/path-021920.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-021920.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-021920-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-021920-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/path-021920-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />A newly-released major audit of law enforcement agencies in California show that some of the largest police departments in the state have been illegally sharing automated license plate reader surveillance and tracking data with other entities around the country. Up to 99.9 percent of the images collected had nothing to do with criminal investigations. Path [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/california-cops-show-surveillance-abolition-needs-to-be-emphasized/" title="California Cops Show Surveillance &#8220;Abolition&#8221; Needs to be Emphasized" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/path-021920.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-021920.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-021920-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-021920-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/path-021920-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>A newly-released major audit of law enforcement agencies in California show that some of the largest police departments in the state have been illegally sharing automated license plate reader surveillance and tracking data with other entities around the country. Up to 99.9 percent of the images collected had nothing to do with criminal investigations.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: February 19, 2020<span id="more-34270"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/NhLejWlseY0?start=64" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>PODCAST VERSION</strong></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">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&amp;isi=691797987&amp;ius=googleplaymusic&amp;apn=com.google.android.music&amp;link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ic7vaa26zzqtt2zmxovxwkxktem?t%3DPath_to_Liberty%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Play</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></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://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-16-02-0074" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Jefferson 1790</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-30-02-0392" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Jefferson 1798</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-readers-alpr" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">ALPR Overview from EFF</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/y3mb8b/california-police-have-been-illegally-sharing-license-plate-reader-data" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">California Police Have Been Illegally Sharing License Plate Reader Data</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/2-5-billion-surveillance-state-goes-wild-good-morning-liberty-11-16-18/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">2.5 Billion. Surveillance State Goes Wild</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/summary.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">ALPR Audit</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/state-statutes-regulating-the-use-of-automated-license-plate-readers-alpr-or-alpr-data.aspx" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">ALPR Bills Passed</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/stoplapdspying/status/1228473546080309248" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Stop LAPD Spying &#8211; Abolish!</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/f8d23533-4e2d-4e42-a5f2-f78d577b2bb9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/drIA9HBQKi87/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/24d4bd22-fbb2-43a4-9d30-84768d7db10b" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/554531290" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1RDxlQBrOEoKL" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter/videos/205093587352873/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+4UGtgxQZR" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video License Plate Tracking Path to Liberty Police Surveillance ALPR California LAPD surveillance Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 36:56 A newly-released major audit of law enforcement agencies in California show that some of the largest police departments in the state have been illegally sharing automated license plate reader surveillance and tracking data with other entities around th... A newly-released major audit of law enforcement agencies in California show that some of the largest police departments in the state have been illegally sharing automated license plate reader surveillance and tracking data with other entities around the country. Up to 99.9 percent of the images collected had nothing to do with criminal investigations. Path […] Idaho Bill Would Place Limits on Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/idaho-bill-would-place-limits-on-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:eb9cdf1f-2a1a-32f7-a409-3dfa2e93a8fc Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:46:06 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/idaho-bill-would-place-limits-on-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/" title="Idaho Bill Would Place Limits on Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-idaho-021820.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-idaho-021820.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-idaho-021820-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-idaho-021820-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-idaho-021820-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />BOISE, Idaho (Feb. 19, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Idaho House would put some limits on police use of facial recognition surveillance. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in Idaho; it would take a step toward hindering one aspect of the federal surveillance state. The House Environment, Energy and Technology [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/idaho-bill-would-place-limits-on-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/" title="Idaho Bill Would Place Limits on Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-idaho-021820.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-idaho-021820.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-idaho-021820-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-idaho-021820-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-idaho-021820-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>BOISE</strong>, Idaho (Feb. 19, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Idaho House would put some limits on police use of facial recognition surveillance. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in Idaho; it would take a step toward hindering one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-34251"></span></p> <p>The House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee introduced House Bill 492 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/ID/bill/H0492/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">H492</a>) on Feb. 11. The legislation would ban government agencies from using facial recognition for &#8220;ongoing surveillance&#8221; without a warrant in most situations. This would include using facial recognition technology to scan crowds, streets or neighborhoods.</p> <p>The bill creates an exception for the warrant requirement if &#8220;the agency reasonably determines that ongoing surveillance is necessary to prevent or respond to an emergency involving imminent danger or risk of death or serious physical injury to a person,&#8221; with written approval from the agency director. Even under this exception, police would have to obtain a warrant within 48 hours.</p> <p>The proposed law also bans the use of facial recognition solely based on an individuals religious, political, or social views or activities; participation in a particular noncriminal organization or lawful event; or actual or perceived race, ethnicity, citizenship, place of origin, age, disability, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other characteristic protected by law.</p> <p>In addition to the warrant requirement, H492 would require law enforcement agencies to develop and make public a detailed &#8220;accountability report&#8221; outlining its use of facial recognition technology before using it, along with annual reporting procedures. This would create transparency of facial recognition programs and make it easier for activists to fight abuses. As the old saying goes, sunshine is the best disinfectant.</p> <p>H492 also includes provisions limiting private use of facial recognition.</p> <p>Although H492 would no ban the use of facial recognition technology, it would take the first step toward limiting its use in Idaho. As it currently stands, Idaho law enforcement agencies can use facial recognition technology with no restrictions and in complete secrecy.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>A <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recent report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/31/local-state-and-federal-law-enforcement-partnering-to-create-massive-facial-recognition-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a massive, nationwide facial recognition system</a> for years.</p> <p>The FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.</p> <p>In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at <a href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">perpetuallineup.org</a>. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.</p> <blockquote><p>“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/study-lack-of-face-recognition-oversight-threatens-privacy-of-millions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clare Garvie said</a>. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”</p></blockquote> <p>There are <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">many technical and legal problems</a> with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8wa8/amazons-facial-recognition-misidentified-1-in-5-california-lawmakers-as-criminals" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature</a> as people in a database of arrest photos.</p> <p>With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.</p> <p>In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras</a> equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of state laws and local ordinances banning and limiting facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>H492 was referred to the <a href="https://legislature.idaho.gov/committees/housecommittees/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Facial Recognition State Bills biometric surveillance facial recognition Fourth Amendment H492 idaho Privacy Mike Maharrey Connecticut Bill Would Legalize Retail Marijuana Sales Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/connecticut-bill-would-legalize-retail-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:a739e677-bebe-80bb-e2db-f679452d8b45 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:12:08 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/connecticut-bill-would-legalize-retail-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/" title="Connecticut Bill Would Legalize Retail Marijuana Sales Despite Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/connecticut-sign-wm-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/connecticut-sign-wm-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/connecticut-sign-wm-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/connecticut-sign-wm-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/connecticut-sign-wm-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />HARTFORD, Conn. (Feb. 19, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Connecticut House would legalize marijuana for adult use and retail sales of cannabis in the state despite federal prohibition. Rep. Juan Candelaria (D-New Haven) introduced House Bill 5130 (HB5130) on Feb. 13. The legislation would legalize marijuana for adults 21 and over in Connecticut [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/connecticut-bill-would-legalize-retail-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/" title="Connecticut Bill Would Legalize Retail Marijuana Sales Despite Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/connecticut-sign-wm-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/connecticut-sign-wm-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/connecticut-sign-wm-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/connecticut-sign-wm-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/connecticut-sign-wm-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>HARTFORD</strong>, Conn. (Feb. 19, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Connecticut House would legalize marijuana for adult use and retail sales of cannabis in the state despite federal prohibition.<span id="more-34246"></span></p> <p>Rep. Juan Candelaria (D-New Haven) introduced House Bill 5130 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CT/bill/HB05130/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB5130</a>) on Feb. 13. The legislation would legalize marijuana for adults 21 and over in Connecticut and create a regulatory and tax structure for the retail sale of cannabis. The bill would prohibit sales or excise tax on medical marijuana.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>Connecticut legalized medical marijuana in 2012 despite federal prohibition. Legalization of recreational marijuana would remove yet another layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state, but federal prohibition would remain in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Connecticut joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.</p> <p>The push to legalize recreational marijuana in Connecticut underscores another important strategic reality. Once a state legalizes marijuana – even if only in a very limited way – it tends to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand expands. That creates pressure to further relax state law. These new laws represent a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB5130 was referred to the Joint Committee on Judiciary where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Drug War State Bills cannabis Connecticut HB5130 Marijuana Mike Maharrey Today in History: FDR Issues Executive Order Creating American Concentration Camps https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/19/today-in-history-fdr-issues-executive-order-creating-american-concentration-camps/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:1831fe3e-edff-f826-5e57-21a9687fc88d Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:24:33 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/19/today-in-history-fdr-issues-executive-order-creating-american-concentration-camps/" title="Today in History: FDR Issues Executive Order Creating American Concentration Camps" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/eo-9066-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/eo-9066-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/eo-9066-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/eo-9066-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/eo-9066-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />On this date in 1942, Franklin Roosevelt signed the infamous executive order 9066, authorizing the War Department to establish military zones that would serve as internment camps for Japanese and Italian Americans. After the United States entered World War II, the president felt that the presence of foreign nationals could not be tolerated in time [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/19/today-in-history-fdr-issues-executive-order-creating-american-concentration-camps/" title="Today in History: FDR Issues Executive Order Creating American Concentration Camps" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/eo-9066-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/eo-9066-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/eo-9066-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/eo-9066-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/eo-9066-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>On this date in 1942, Franklin Roosevelt signed the infamous executive order 9066, authorizing the War Department to establish military zones that would serve as internment camps for Japanese and Italian Americans.<span id="more-29080"></span></p> <p>After the United States entered World War II, the president felt that the presence of foreign nationals could not be tolerated in time of war, and would produce seditious and rebellious behavior:</p> <blockquote><p>“Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion.”</p></blockquote> <p>Under the policy, 120,000 people were summarily rounded up and placed into captivity, separated from their families, homes, property, and livelihood for long lengths of time.</p> <p>Cruelly reminiscent of anti-Jewish programs enacted by the Third Reich in Germany, Roosevelt’s decree was a clear-cut violation of the Fifth Amendment guarantee to life, liberty, and property. The order was also imposed by executive decree, bypassing Congress and appearing as the command of an all-powerful monarch.</p> <p>President Roosevelt engaged in efforts to relocate citizens by issuing a secondary decree, Executive Order 9102, which specifically established the War Relocation Authority. The new federal institution was bestowed the power to forcibly seize and relocate individuals into the camps.</p> <p>Rather than reversing this heartless transgression, the federal courts gave the policy legal credence. Demonstrating the complicity of the federal judiciary in the exploit, the court ruled that Roosevelt’s actions were wholly constitutional in the 1944 case of <em>Korematsu v. United States</em>.</p> <p>The majority opinion, written by Justice Hugo Black, stated that the court was unable to conclude that it was beyond the war powers of Congress and the president to confine people of Japanese ancestry to the designated “war areas.” This assertion was made despite the fact that the Constitution confers no such power to either branch.</p> <p>Nevertheless, Black wrote that the president’s new agency could not be reprimanded despite its loose criteria for determining whether individuals were “disloyal,” and thus subject to such exclusion, relocation, and confinement. In the judge’s estimation, internment was necessary to protect against means of unproven espionage. In considering the actions to intern citizens, Black wrote that “we cannot – by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight – now say that, at the time, these actions were unjustified.”</p> <p>Justice Frank Murphy vehemently dissented to the opinion of the majority, and condemned “the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy.” Murphy correctly added that the exclusion policy went “over the very brink of constitutional power.”</p> <p>Individuals must not be deprived of their constitutional rights, he wrote, despite the government’s concerns for security. Murphy recognized the reason for the Fifth Amendment’s existence and understood that a despotic condition would arise if the government ignored it. Without regard to Murphy’s warning, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal program by a margin of six to three – giving a judicial seal of approval for Roosevelt’s treacherous internment program.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> History Concentration camps EO 9066 Executive Order 9066 FDR Internment Today in History Dave Benner South Dakota Bill Would Require Conviction for Asset Forfeiture But Federal Loophole Remains https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/south-dakota-bill-would-require-conviction-for-asset-forfeiture-but-federal-loophole-remains/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3eb678da-94d0-e9c3-cd40-881049c946c4 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:12:07 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/south-dakota-bill-would-require-conviction-for-asset-forfeiture-but-federal-loophole-remains/" title="South Dakota Bill Would Require Conviction for Asset Forfeiture But Federal Loophole Remains" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />PIERRE, S.D. (Feb. 19, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the South Dakota Senate would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction in most cases. But the legislation leaves a loophole in place allowing police to circumvent stricter state laws by passing cases off to the feds. [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/south-dakota-bill-would-require-conviction-for-asset-forfeiture-but-federal-loophole-remains/" title="South Dakota Bill Would Require Conviction for Asset Forfeiture But Federal Loophole Remains" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>PIERRE</strong>, S.D. (Feb. 19, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the South Dakota Senate would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction in most cases. But the legislation leaves a loophole in place allowing police to circumvent stricter state laws by passing cases off to the feds.<span id="more-34247"></span></p> <p>Sen. Arthur Rusch (R-Vermillion) and Rep. Jess Olson (R-Rapid City) introduced Senate Bill 172 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/SD/bill/SB172/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB172</a>) on Feb. 6. Under the proposed law, prosecutors could not proceed with asset forfeiture proceedings unless the criminal prosecution that provides the basis for the forfeiture results in a conviction and the state establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the property constitutes, or is derived directly from, proceeds of the underlying offense for which the person was convicted; or if the property was used in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of the offense for which the person was convicted.</p> <p>The <a href="https://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-south-dakota/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Institute for Justice calls South Dakota&#8217;s asset forfeiture laws</a> &#8220;some of the worst in the country.&#8221; In order to forfeit property, law enforcement only has to tie it to a crime by a preponderance of the evidence. Under the current law, people in South Dakota can have the property permanently seized without even being charged with a crime. There is also a strong &#8220;policing for profit&#8221; incentive in the state, with law enforcement keeping up to 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds.</p> <p>While passage of SB172 would significantly reform South Dakota&#8217;s asset forfeiture laws, it fails to address a loophole that allows state and local police to get around more strict state 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).</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/federal-asset-forfeiture-program-helps-local-police-steal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Equitable Sharing</a>” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.</p> <p>Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state closed the loophole</a> in 2016.</p> <p>The South Dakota Senate should amend the current legislation with language to close the loophole and opt the state out of equitable sharing.</p> <blockquote> <div>A local, county or state law enforcement agency shall not refer, transfer or otherwise relinquish possession of property seized under state law to a federal agency by way of adoption of the seized property or other means by the federal agency for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Public Law 91 513-Oct. 27, 1970.under the federal Controlled Substances Act or other federal law.</div> <div></div> <div>In a case in which the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized has a value of $50,000 or less, excluding the value of contraband, a local, county or state law enforcement agency or participant in a joint task force or other multijurisdictional collaboration with the federal government (agency) shall transfer responsibility for the seized property to the state prosecuting authority for forfeiture under state law.</div> <div></div> <div>If the federal government prohibits the transfer of seized property and currency to the state prosecuting authority as required by paragraph (1) and instead requires the property be transferred to the federal government for forfeiture under federal law, the agency is prohibited from accepting payment of any kind or distribution of forfeiture proceeds from the federal government.</div> </blockquote> <p>Very few cases exceed the $50,000 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>SB172 was referred to the <a href="http://sdlegislature.gov/Legislative_Session/Committees/Default.aspx?Committee=451&amp;Session=2020&amp;tab=Detail&amp;document=none" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Senate Judiciary Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing Policing for Profit SB172 South Dakota Mike Maharrey The new ERA campaign: constitutional malware https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/19/the-new-era-campaign-constitutional-malware/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:edd6564d-25a6-4403-f0de-252783cc9cc2 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:14:30 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/19/the-new-era-campaign-constitutional-malware/" title="The new ERA campaign: constitutional malware" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Computer hackers spread malware to create havoc. Sometimes their goal is evil satisfaction and sometimes financial gain. Some political activists spread political malware for similar purposes. They sow havoc because it offers ego-building publicity, and opportunities for fund raising, organizing, and dramatic lawsuits. Hence the campaign to resurrect the long-expired “equal rights amendment” or ERA. [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/19/the-new-era-campaign-constitutional-malware/" title="The new ERA campaign: constitutional malware" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/malware-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Computer hackers spread malware to create havoc. Sometimes their goal is evil satisfaction and sometimes financial gain. Some political activists spread political malware for similar purposes. They sow havoc because it offers ego-building publicity, and opportunities for fund raising, organizing, and dramatic lawsuits. Hence the campaign to resurrect the long-expired “equal rights amendment” or ERA.</p> <p>The campaign’s activists <a href="https://www.equalitynow.org/era">assert</a> that “women are not protected by the U.S. Constitution,” which, of course, is an <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2015/11/originalism-and-female-presidents-againmichael-ramsey.html">utter falsehood</a>. Moreover, they claim, if only three more states ratify the ERA, it will become part of the Constitution, thereby assuring equal rights. As explained below, that is also false.</p> <p>The incentives behind the campaign are obvious. The ERA is poorly drafted and vague (which is why it was rejected). If it became part of the Constitution, the result would be legal chaos. Activists know they would be able to feed off that chaos with lucrative lawsuits, direct mail fundraising, and publicity. If, as is overwhelmingly probable, the courts re-affirm that the ERA is dead, then the same activists can organize campaigns attacking the courts and promoting or opposing judicial nominees.</p> <p>ERA activists have won the endorsement of two of the three states they seek by gulling the Nevada and Illinois legislatures into “ratifying” the expired amendment. They now are targeting Virginia. [Author’s note: Since this article was written, Virginia has also “ratified.”]</p> <p>Perhaps because this scam seems so far-fetched, response has been belated. But in December, <a href="https://atg.sd.gov/docs/ERA%20Complaint.pdf">three states sued</a> to stop the Archivist of the United States from accepting ERA “ratifications.” On January 6, the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel <a href="http://articlevinfocenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/OLS-ERA-op.pdf">advised</a> the Archivist to the same effect. Now state lawmakers should terminate the game by refusing to play.</p> <p>Here is the background:</p> <p>To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by Congress or by a <a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/Natelson-CoS-final.pdf">convention of the states</a>, and then ratified by 38 states. When members of Congress first considered the ERA, they found its language appealing: Section 1 proclaimed that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Section 2 granted Congress broad new power to enforce the amendment. In 1972, Congress proposed the ERA to the states on condition that full ratification must occur by 1979.</p> <p>At first, state legislatures ratified quickly. But then they began to notice how poorly drafted the ERA was and how much anguish it would cause. For beneath the amendment’s simple surface lurked constitutional, political, and social nightmares.</p> <p>For example, the ERA uses the word “rights” without regard to the fact that “right” has many legal meanings. When the existing constitutional text employs the word, the text describes the right, or kind of right, intended. Thus, the Constitution protects the “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “the right . . . to keep and bear arms,” and so forth. By contrast, the ERA contains no defining or explanatory language.</p> <p>The ERA mandates “equality.” But that, too, has many meanings. The amendment would provoke endless litigation on such issues as: May state offices maintain separate bathrooms for men and women? (There are plenty of judicial decisions holding that separate is never equal.) May the federal government draft men but not women? Is there a “right” to be drafted? To not be drafted? Must a state office grant pregnancy leave? If it grants pregnancy leave to women, must it grant pregnancy leave to men? Or is granting leave to both unequal because women become pregnant and men do not? No one knows how the ERA would resolve these or a multiplicity of other questions.</p> <p>As the 1970s wore on, state lawmakers became aware that the ERA was the proverbial pig in the poke. By adopting it, they would be replicating experience with parts of the 14<sup>th</sup> amendment, whose drafting defects have spawned doubt, litigation, and shifting court opinions for over 150 years. (Despite claims to the contrary, most of the Constitution is <a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-original-constitution-robert-natelson/1026762475">fairly precise</a>.) State lawmakers learned that the ERA would license unelected judges to legislate extensively and grant Congress sweeping power to interfere in state governance.</p> <p>The pace of state ratifications slowed. Then it stopped. Then it shifted into reverse as states began to rescind. Congress attempted to extend the deadline from 1979 to 1982—an action a federal court <a href="http://articlevinfocenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1981-ID-v-Freeman-D.Id_.pdf">correctly ruled</a> unconstitutional. Still, not a single additional state signed on. By the extended deadline, only 30 of the 38 required states had ratified: 35 initial ratifications, minus five rescissions.</p> <p>More states might have rescinded, but ERA advocates, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg (now Justice Ginsburg), acknowledged defeat. In recognition that the ERA was dead, the Supreme Court dismissed pending ERA litigation as moot.</p> <p>And there matters rested until activists invented their renewed “ratification” campaign. Of course, their campaign requires them to pretend the ERA is not dead, so they claim—</p> <p>*         That Congress’s deadlines for ratification are ineffective and the ERA lasts forever;</p> <p>*         That, assuming deadlines to be effective, deadlines must be the body of the amendment rather than (as in the ERA) in the resolution’s introduction;</p> <p>*         That Congress may extend deadlines retroactively;</p> <p>*         That <em>every</em> state ratification counts, no matter how late; but</p> <p>*         That <em>no</em> state rescission counts, no matter how timely.</p> <p>The first assertion contradicts settled Supreme Court authority. The second disregards settled practice, the resolution’s wording, and the trend of modern court decisions.</p> <p>The third—that Congress may create a new retroactive deadline—violates all constitutional understanding. As the Office of Legal Services pointed out, it is like saying that if the president vetoes a bill in 1980 and Congress fails to override it, then Congress may try to override it again forty years later.</p> <p>The fourth assertion—that we must count ratifications passed after the deadline—disregards the Supreme Court ruling that Congress may impose a deadline.</p> <p>The fifth—that rescissions don’t count—is flawed because (1) it is based on non-binding court language since widely repudiated, (2) it contradicts universal legislative practice, (3) it contradicts the <a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/Conventions-FLR.pdf">historical practice</a> on which the Constitution’s amendment process was based, and (4) it contradicts a federal court decision directly on point.</p> <p>Where did the ERA activists get their constitutional gibberish? Believe it or not, their source was, according to one of their <a href="https://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq">website</a><u>s</u>, a 1997 school paper written by three law students. Perhaps no reputable lawyer would sign on.</p> <p>Ratification today would be even more pointless and irresponsible than it was in the 1970s: pointless, because the courts now recognize full gender equality; irresponsible, because the amendment poses even more problems now than in 1972. For example, should courts interpret the ERA as understood in the 1970s or as understood when finally ratified? In 1972 the phrase “on account of sex” referred to men and women. Today judges might interpret it to include other alleged genders. No one has any idea of what direction the courts would go in applying the ERA.</p> <p>The campaign to raise the ERA zombie is the height of constitutional and civic irresponsibility. State legislators should reject it with the contempt it deserves.</p> <p><strong>A version of this article <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-new-era-campaign-constitutional-malware_3200106.html">first appeared</a> in the January 10, 2020 <em>Epoch Times</em>.</strong></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Current Events Equal Rights Amendment ERA Rob Natelson Tennessee Bills Would Create Process to Stop State Agencies From Taking Federal Funds https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/tennessee-bills-would-create-process-to-stop-state-agencies-from-taking-federal-funds/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:932ce981-659d-adfb-f774-13c819fc58d9 Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:08:16 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/tennessee-bills-would-create-process-to-stop-state-agencies-from-taking-federal-funds/" title="Tennessee Bills Would Create Process to Stop State Agencies From Taking Federal Funds" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/tennessee-flag-wm-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/tennessee-flag-wm-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/tennessee-flag-wm-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/tennessee-flag-wm-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/tennessee-flag-wm-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />NASHVILLE. Tenn. (Feb. 19, 2020) &#8211; Bills filed in the Tennessee legislature would create a process to review and reject federal block grants. This would set the stage to untangle Tennessee from the regulations and mandates that often accompany federal funding. Sen. Frank Niceley (R-Strawberry Plains) introduced Senate Bill 2055 (SB2055) on Feb. 3. Rep. [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/tennessee-bills-would-create-process-to-stop-state-agencies-from-taking-federal-funds/" title="Tennessee Bills Would Create Process to Stop State Agencies From Taking Federal Funds" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/tennessee-flag-wm-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/tennessee-flag-wm-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/tennessee-flag-wm-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/tennessee-flag-wm-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/tennessee-flag-wm-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>NASHVILLE</strong>. Tenn. (Feb. 19, 2020) &#8211; Bills filed in the Tennessee legislature would create a process to review and reject federal block grants. This would set the stage to untangle Tennessee from the regulations and mandates that often accompany federal funding.<span id="more-34221"></span></p> <p>Sen. Frank Niceley (R-Strawberry Plains) introduced Senate Bill 2055 (<a href="http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SB2055&amp;GA=111" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB2055</a>) on Feb. 3. Rep. Mark Cochran (R-Englewood) introduced the companion &#8211; House Bill 2831 (<a href="http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB2831&amp;GA=111" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB2831</a>) &#8211; on Feb. 5. Under the proposed law, no state agency would be able to enter into or renew a contract or other agreement with the federal government for the receipt of a federal block grant unless the contract or other agreement is approved by the general assembly.</p> <p>State agencies often accept federal money no legislative approval and virtually no oversight. Passage of the legislation would create a process to stop state agencies from accepting block grants &#8212; particularly those that create a regulatory burden on Tennesseans.</p> <p>Federal money often comes with all kinds of strings attached in the form of mandates and regulations. The federal government can effectively legislate within the borders of a state by dangling money in front of state agencies that require them to take specific actions in order to maintain the funding. For instance, <a href="http://sfl.golddustwebsolut.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/AFFH-Final-Rule.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HUD rules</a> known as Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) total 377 pages. These regulations “require program participants receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) formula funding to undertake an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction and take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments, and keep records on such efforts.”</p> <p>These rules give the federal government the leverage to exercise a great deal of control over local planning and development decisions to accomplish wide-ranging goals.</p> <p>Block grants from other federal agencies come with similarly burdensome regulations.</p> <p>The federal government uses funding as a way to dictate policies within a state that they are outside of their constitutional bounds. Since they aren&#8217;t passing laws, they can argue that they aren&#8217;t passing unconstitutional laws, the states are agreeing to the regulation by virtue of accepting the money. They don&#8217;t have to take the funds and thus technically chose to abide by the regulations.</p> <p>Of course, all of this federal funding and the agencies that offer it are unconstitutional in and of themselves.</p> <p>Passage of SB2055/HB2831 would ensure lawmaking power remains in the state legislature. It would create a process to stop government agencies from taking grant money that effectively establish new laws in Tennessee and would create a mechanism to rein in overreaching federal power.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB2055 was referred to the Senate Finance, Ways, and Means Committee and HB2831 was referred to the House Finance, Ways, and Means Committee. Both bills must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Federal Review State Bills block grants HB2831 SB2055 Tennessee Mike Maharrey New Mexico Senate Passes Bill to Strengthen Electronic Communications Privacy Act https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-mexico-senate-passes-bill-to-strengthen-electronic-communications-privacy-act/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:54979345-8b9c-a8fb-3770-6651dfe45ffa Tue, 18 Feb 2020 17:13:08 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-mexico-senate-passes-bill-to-strengthen-electronic-communications-privacy-act/" title="New Mexico Senate Passes Bill to Strengthen Electronic Communications Privacy Act" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319-768x403.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319-1024x537.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319-1080x566.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />SANTA FE, N.M. (Feb. 18, 2020) &#8211; On Sunday, the New Mexico Senate passed a bill that would expand protections under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Passage of the bill would not only increase data privacy in the state; it would also further hinder the federal surveillance state. Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto (D-Albuquerque) introduced Senate Bill [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-mexico-senate-passes-bill-to-strengthen-electronic-communications-privacy-act/" title="New Mexico Senate Passes Bill to Strengthen Electronic Communications Privacy Act" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319-768x403.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319-1024x537.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319-1080x566.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/06/data-state-new-mexico-061319-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>SANTA FE</strong>, N.M. (Feb. 18, 2020) &#8211; On Sunday, the New Mexico Senate passed a bill that would expand protections under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Passage of the bill would not only increase data privacy in the state; it would also further hinder the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-34255"></span><br /> Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto (D-Albuquerque) introduced Senate Bill 270 (<a href="https://www.nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?chamber=S&amp;legType=B&amp;legNo=270&amp;year=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB270</a>) on Feb. 4. The legislation would expand provisions of the <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/now-in-effect-new-mexico-electronic-communications-privacy-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Electronic Communications Privacy Act that passed last year</a> to limit the retention and use of incidentally collected data.</p> <p>The Electronic Communications Privacy Act helps block the use of cell-site simulators, known as “<a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/cell-site-simulatorsimsi-catchers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">stingrays</a>.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device. Under the law, police must obtain a search warrant or wiretap order before using a stingray in most situations. The law also bars law enforcement agencies from compelling a service provider or any person other than the owner of the device without a warrant or wiretap order. This includes actual communication content such as phone conversations, text messages and email, location information and other metadata such as IP addresses pertaining to a person or device participating in the communication.</p> <p>SB270 would require police to seal any information obtained through the execution of the warrant that is unrelated to the objective of the warrant, or is not exculpatory to the target of the warrant. The information could not be subject to further review, used, or disclosed, except pursuant to a court order or to comply with discovery. The proposed law would also require the destruction of any Information obtained through the execution of a warrant or order that is unrelated to the objective of the warrant as soon as feasible after the termination of the current investigation and related investigations or proceedings.</p> <p>On Feb. 16, the Senate passed SB270 by a 39-0 vote.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-stingray-case-20150408-story.html#page=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Baltimore Sun reported</a> in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.</p> <p>Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.</p> <p>“Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.</p> <p>“Yes,” Cabreja said.</p> <p>As <a href="https://privacysos.org/node/1715" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">privacysos.org</a> put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”</p> <p>The <a href="https://offnow.org/the-secretive-and-intrusive-world-of-stingray-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">experience of a Pinellas County, Florida, man further highlights the shroud of secrecy around the use of stingray devices</a>, along with the potential for abuse of power inherent in America’s law enforcement community.</p> <p>The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.</p> <p>Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal databases.</p> <p>The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p>The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of SB199 strikes a major blow to the surveillance state and is a win for privacy.</p> <p><strong>PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION</strong></p> <p>By allowing defendants to suppress information obtained in violation of the law, SB199 will hinder one practical effect of NSA spying in New Mexico.</p> <p>Reuters <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 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>This is “the most threatening situation to our constitutional republic since the Civil War,” Binney said.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB270 will now move to the House for further consideration. At the time of this report, it had not been referred to a House committee. Once it receives a committee assignment, it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> State Bills Stingrays cell site simulator Fourth Amendment New Mexico Privacy SB270 stingray surveillance Mike Maharrey West Virginia Bill Takes On Federal Gun Control; Past, Present and Future https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/west-virginia-bill-takes-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-future/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:843486fe-7e0d-114e-e3a3-1877c3c140a5 Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:58:53 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/west-virginia-bill-takes-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-future/" title="West Virginia Bill Takes On Federal Gun Control; Past, Present and Future" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />CHARLESTON, W. Va. (Feb. 18, 2020) – A bill introduced in the West Virginia Senate would set the foundation to create a gun sanctuary state by prohibiting enforcement of past, present and future federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/west-virginia-bill-takes-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-future/" title="West Virginia Bill Takes On Federal Gun Control; Past, Present and Future" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>CHARLESTON</strong>, W. Va. (Feb. 18, 2020) – A bill introduced in the West Virginia Senate would set the foundation to create a gun sanctuary state by prohibiting enforcement of past, present and future federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state in practice and effect.<span id="more-34245"></span></p> <p>Sen. Mark Maynard (R-Wayne) introduced Senate Bill 771 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/bill/SB771/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB771</a>) on Feb. 13. The bill is a companion to House Bill 4168 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/bill/HB4168/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB4168</a>), introduced by Del. Joe Jeffries (R-Putnam) in January. The legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, or regulations” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.</p> <p>The bills include a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:</p> <ul> <li>taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect on firearms ownership;</li> <li>registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;</li> <li>any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.</li> </ul> <p>The proposed law defines “law-abiding citizen” as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.”</p> <p>Under the proposed law, infringement on the right to keep and bear arms would include the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Pres. Trump’s <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/10/states-should-nullify-trumps-unconstitutional-bump-stock-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bump-stock ban</a>, proposed federal “red-flag laws,” and any future gun control schemes implemented by the federal government.</p> <p>The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.</p> <blockquote><p>“Sovereign, official, or qualified immunity shall not be an affirmative defense in such actions.”</p></blockquote> <p>The bills also include provisions that would apply to federal agents who knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringing acts identified in the law, or who give material aid and support to such enforcement efforts.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.</p> <p>In other words, West Virginia law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in West Virginia law enforcement again.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most 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>Some gun-rights supporters have argued that such a measure is “unnecessary” because it addresses a nonexistent problem with a divided Congress and an NRA-backed president. Trump’s bump stock ban obliterates this fallacy. Furthermore, the Trump administration actually <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/29/report-trump-administration-ramps-up-enforcement-of-federal-gun-laws/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ramped up enforcement of federal gun laws in 2017</a>.</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of West Virginia can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB771 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. Supporters of the bill who live in West Virginia should contact all the members of the committee and firmly, but respectfully, ask them to vote YES on SB771. <a href="http://www.wvlegislature.gov/committees/senate/SenateCommittee.cfm?Chart=jud" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Contact info can be found at this link</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Federal Gun Control SB771 second amendment West Virginia Mike Maharrey Missouri Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Eliminate Marriage Licensing https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/missouri-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-eliminate-marriage-licensing/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:348ce2e8-1d90-ec3b-b096-88ef8e2fc074 Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:46:00 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/missouri-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-eliminate-marriage-licensing/" title="Missouri Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Eliminate Marriage Licensing" rel="nofollow"><img width="1199" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/marriage-state-missouri-021820.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/marriage-state-missouri-021820.jpg 1199w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/marriage-state-missouri-021820-980x513.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/marriage-state-missouri-021820-480x251.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1199px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/marriage-state-missouri-021820-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Feb. 18, 2020)  Yesterday, a Missouri House committee held a public hearing on a bill that would end government marriage licenses in the state, an important step towards nullifying both major sides of the contentious national debate over government-sanctioned marriage. Rep. Adam Schnelting (R-St. Charles) introduced House Bill 2173 (HB2173) on Jan. [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/missouri-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-eliminate-marriage-licensing/" title="Missouri Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Eliminate Marriage Licensing" rel="nofollow"><img width="1199" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/marriage-state-missouri-021820.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/marriage-state-missouri-021820.jpg 1199w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/marriage-state-missouri-021820-980x513.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/marriage-state-missouri-021820-480x251.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1199px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/marriage-state-missouri-021820-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (Feb. 18, 2020)  Yesterday, a Missouri House committee held a public hearing on a bill that would end government marriage licenses in the state, an important step towards nullifying both major sides of the contentious national debate over government-sanctioned marriage.<span id="more-34254"></span></p> <p>Rep. Adam Schnelting (R-St. Charles) introduced House Bill 2173 (<a href="https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB2173&amp;year=2020&amp;code=R" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB2173</a>) on Jan. 14. The legislation would amend the state’s marriage laws by replacing marriage licenses with “contracts of domestic union.”</p> <blockquote><p>“Two persons seeking to be married in this state and who are otherwise legally authorized to do so shall enter into a contract of domestic union. A contract of domestic union shall be the legal equivalent of marriage under the laws of this state.”</p></blockquote> <p>In practice, the state’s role in marriage would be limited to recording marriage contracts entered into by consenting adults or with parental consent if under the age of 18.</p> <blockquote><p>“A civil and independent or religious ceremony of marriage, celebration of marriage, solemnization of marriage, or any other officiation, and administration of the vows of marriage may be conducted or engaged in by the parties to this contract of domestic union by an officiant or other presiding party to be selected by the parties to the contract. The state shall have no requirement for such ceremonial proceeding which, if performed or not performed, shall have no legal effect upon the validity of the contract of domestic union.”</p></blockquote> <p>The proposed law would change all references to unmarried persons in state law to “persons not party to a contract of domestic union” and swap all mentions of “marriage” with “contracts of domestic union.” Further, it would repeal a section of state law that specifically defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and that prohibits same-sex couples from receiving marriage licenses.</p> <p>On Feb. 17, the House General Laws Committee held a public hearing on the measure. Testifying for his bill, <a href="https://www.missourinet.com/2020/02/17/domestic-union-instead-of-marriage-missouri-bill-would-reduce-the-nuptial-definition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Schnelting, an ordained minister, said</a> it&#8217;s about getting the government out of marriage.</p> <blockquote><p>“Whether you’re religious, whether you’re nonreligious, whether you’re straight, whether you’re a member of the LGBT community, this is about restoring the government to its proper role. If I don’t need a license for my right to keep and bear arms, I certainly do not need the government’s permission or a license to marry.”</p></blockquote> <p>There was significant opposition to the bill, both from supporters of &#8220;traditional marriage&#8221; and advocates for same-sex unions.</p> <p>Rep. Tracy McCreery (D-Olivette) called the legislation &#8220;divisive,&#8221; hurtful to LGBT individuals, and said it would take a step backward.</p> <blockquote><p>“I want to make sure that love can be love and marriage can be marriage and that we’re not trying to undue something that the U.S. Supreme Court said is the right thing to do.”</p></blockquote> <p>The debate proved a point Schnelting made during the debate. He pointed out that when the government is allowed to intrude into private matters, it is usually contentious.</p> <blockquote><p>“Because then you have one section of America pitting itself against another.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>While this change in the law may seem like semantics, it is quite significant. It ends the requirement to get state permission before getting married. The state would instead simply record signed contracts between consenting individuals. In effect, it would remove the state from the approval process and relegate it to a mere record-keeper.</p> <p>HB2173 would still retain certain restrictions on contracts of domestic union such as prohibiting those under the age of 15 from entering into them, as well as a continued prohibition on incest and bigamy. Common law marriages would also remain illegal.</p> <p>Alabama <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/now-in-effect-alabama-law-eliminates-marriage-licenses-foundation-to-nullify-federal-control-in-practice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">enacted a similar law last year</a>.</p> <p>Passage of HB2173 would take a step toward returning to the traditional Western custom in which the state had little to no involvement in marriage, even though it was a legal contract as well as a religious institution. Marriage in medieval Europe technically fell under the legal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, with priests officiating weddings at the door of the community church. However, it was ultimately a private arrangement that did not require a third party in order to be considered legitimate.</p> <p>In “<em>The Middle Ages: Everyday Life in Medieval Europe</em>,” Jeffrey Singman writes that proposed marriages were announced at the parish church of both persons for three Sundays, but this was in order to ensure problems such as preexisting marriage agreements did not arise. Still, “not every marriage followed these formalities.”</p> <p>Singman writes:</p> <blockquote><p>According to canon law, marriage could be contracted either by a vow of marriage expressed in the present tense or by a statement of future intent to marriage followed by sexual consummation. The latter sort of marriage in particular could take place without the participation of church or community. Such marriages were illegal, but not invalid; the although the couple might be prosecuted in the church courts, they remained legally married.</p></blockquote> <p>In fact, state marriage licenses were initially used to prevent interracial marriages. As a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=2&amp;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2007 <em>New York Times</em> op/ed points out</a>, licenses later became necessary in order to subsidize the welfare state.</p> <blockquote><p>“The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.”</p></blockquote> <p>In a modern political context, HB2173 would reduce the state’s role in defining and regulating marriage, which has become a contentious issue and places a burden on government officials torn between the legal requirements of their jobs and their personal religious convictions. By limiting the state’s role in marriage, the legislation will allow Missourians to structure their personal relationships as they see fit without interference or approval from the government.</p> <p>Something rarely considered by those seeking to control the state’s definition of marriage is that a marriage license means a person requires government permission before getting married. In America, people generally cannot drive a vehicle without a license. People cannot practice law without a license, nor can they provide medical care. Put another way, under a licensing scheme, marriage is not a right, nor a religious institution, but a privilege granted by the state and limited by its requirements.</p> <p>Consider this: In the same way a driver can lose their license if they break certain traffic laws, a man or woman, theoretically, could one day find their marriage license revoked for breaking certain “marriage” rules, whether it pertains to childrearing or their religious and political convictions.</p> <p>Christopher Wesley, an associated scholar at the Mises Institute, <a href="https://mises.org/profile/christopher-westley" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrote that</a> “marriage is most endangered when it rests in the coercive hands of the State.”</p> <p>Constitutionally, marriage is an issue left to the state and the people.</p> <p>Removing state meddling in marriage will render void the edicts of federal judges that have overturned state laws defining the institution. The founding generation never envisioned unelected judges issuing ex-cathedra pronouncements regarding the definition of social institutions, and the Constitution delegates the federal judiciary no authority to do so.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB2173 needs to be brought up for a vote in the <a href="https://house.mo.gov/Committees.aspx?cluster=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House General Laws Committee</a> and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Marriage State Bills HB2173 Missouri Mike Maharrey South Dakota Bill Would End Mandatory Vaccinations for School, Push Back Against Federal Narrative https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/south-dakota-bill-would-end-mandatory-vaccinations-for-school-push-back-against-federal-narrative/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:443bb5ce-3d89-4a68-d125-d7389af91e34 Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:27:19 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/south-dakota-bill-would-end-mandatory-vaccinations-for-school-push-back-against-federal-narrative/" title="South Dakota Bill Would End Mandatory Vaccinations for School, Push Back Against Federal Narrative" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235-1024x535.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235-191x100.jpg 191w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235-50x26.jpg 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235-75x39.jpg 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />PIERRE, S.D. (Feb. 18, 2020) &#8211;  A bill introduced in the South Dakota House would ban mandatory vaccinations for schools and push back against the push for federal vaccines mandates. A coalition of 14 Republicans introduced House Bill 1235 (HB1235) on Feb. 5. There’s a strong move afoot to increase mandatory vaccinations in the U.S. This [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/south-dakota-bill-would-end-mandatory-vaccinations-for-school-push-back-against-federal-narrative/" title="South Dakota Bill Would End Mandatory Vaccinations for School, Push Back Against Federal Narrative" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235-1024x535.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235-191x100.jpg 191w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235-50x26.jpg 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235-75x39.jpg 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/02/South_Dakota_flag_5-e1454985381235-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>PIERRE</strong>, S.D. (Feb. 18, 2020) &#8211;  A bill introduced in the South Dakota House would ban mandatory vaccinations for schools and push back against the push for federal vaccines mandates.<span id="more-34244"></span></p> <p>A coalition of 14 Republicans introduced House Bill 1235 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/SD/bill/HB1235/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB1235</a>) on Feb. 5. There’s a strong move afoot to increase mandatory vaccinations in the U.S. This includes policies to eliminate exemptions from state vaccine mandates and efforts to impose federal mandates. Mandating vaccinations is a dangerous slippery slope that violates the right to informed consent. This legislation would firmly push back against this threat to medical freedom.</p> <p>The proposed law would:</p> <ul> <li>eliminate all South Dakota vaccine mandates for public and non-public schools, early childhood programs and postsecondary educational institutions</li> <li>replace current South Dakota law on mandatory vaccines with the following &#8211;</li> </ul> <p>Under the proposed law, &#8220;No child entering public or nonpublic school, or a public or nonpublic early childhood program in this state, may be required to receive any immunization or medical procedure for enrollment or entry. The Department of Health may recommend any immunization for school entry but may not require them. No school may use any coercive means to require immunization.</p> <p>HB1235 declares, &#8220;Every person has the inalienable right to bodily integrity, free from any threat or compulsion that the person accepts any medical intervention, including immunization. No person may be discriminated against for refusal to accept an unwanted medical intervention, including immunization.&#8221;</p> <p>Under the law, it would be a Class 1 misdemeanor for any educational institution, medical provider, or person to compel another to submit to immunization.</p> <p>HB1235 would also replace current South Dakota law regarding the local board of health immunization requirements with the following:</p> <blockquote><p>The local board of health, upon application of the school board of any school affected by § 13-28-7.1 (South Dakota’s provisions regarding immunizations), shall, at public expense to the extent that funds are available and without delay, provide the immunizations recommended by the Department of Health under § 13-28-7.1 to any pupil who is not provided the immunizations by the pupil&#8217;s parent or guardian if the school board obtains prior written authorization from the pupil&#8217;s parent or guardian after having supplied the parent or guardian with complete information about the immunization, including the package inserts.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>Forced vaccination violates the right to informed consent</strong></p> <p>Vaccination is a medical intervention that carries the risk of injury and death. In the U.S., claims of harm caused by most vaccines must proceed under a special system whereby vaccine manufacturers are shielded from liability and taxpayers, rather than vaccine manufacturers, fund any award of damages. [1] [2]. Further, discovery is not permitted against the vaccine manufacturers under this system. To bring a claim under the system, claimants must first report their adverse reactions in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). However, it’s estimated that less than 1% of vaccine adverse events are ever reported to VAERS. [3] Despite this very low reporting rate, to date, over $4 billion has been paid out under the system for claims of harm caused by vaccines. [4]</p> <p>In light of the possibility of injury or death from vaccines, forced vaccinations violate the right to informed consent. Informed consent is a central ethical principle of modern medicine. It’s based, in part, upon the Nuremberg Code which was issued in 1947 in connection with the conviction of Nazi doctors for forced medical experimentation upon concentration camp prisoners. Although the Nuremberg Code specifically addressed the right to informed consent for participation in scientific experiments, the first principle of the Nuremberg Code has become an ethical standard for patients’ right to informed consent to all medical interventions that carry a risk of harm. It states, in part:</p> <p><em>“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision…” </em>[5]</p> <p><strong>HB1235’s effect on federal policy</strong></p> <p>In the U.S., vaccine mandates currently exist at the state level. However, federal mandates appear to be on the horizon. Having the issue of mandates decided at the local or state level, rather than the federal level, affords those affected by the mandates a greater chance to have their voices heard by the decision-makers. HB1235 would protect the right of South Dakotans to informed consent for both childhood and adult vaccinations.</p> <p><em>State mandates currently </em>apply<em> only to</em><em> children</em><em>. </em>States have historically allowed all or some of the following types of exemptions from them:  1.) religious; 2.) medical; and 3.) philosophical. [6] South Dakota currently only has religious and medical exemptions and lacks a philosophical one. [7]</p> <p>HB 1235 would eliminate South Dakota’s vaccine mandates entirely. This would reject the current trend of U.S. states bolstering their mandates by rolling back or eliminating exemptions. New York, Washington, Maine and California are examples of states that have recently weakened or eliminated exemptions.</p> <p>The pharmaceutical industry has been highly involved in efforts to roll back state exemptions. For example, a lobbying firm with reported financial backing from vaccine manufacturers recently funded an advertising campaign in Maine aimed at defeating a ballot measure which, if passed, would reverse the legislative removal of religious and philosophical exemptions in that state. [8] Other actions by the pharmaceutical industry aimed at eliminating exemptions have included, among other things, serving as “information resources” for legislators, lobbying legislators, conducting consumer marking campaigns and even drafting pro-mandate legislation. [9]</p> <p>The pharmaceutical industry has also been supportive of imposing federal vaccine mandates in the U.S. Although the U.S. currently has no federal mandates, other countries have issued mandates at the federal level and there’s reason to believe that the U.S. may follow suit. In February of 2019, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, then Commissioner of the FDA, made comments to CNN indicating that the federal government has the authority to mandate vaccines and could step in with mandates if states don’t require more children to be vaccinated. [10] Gottlieb made the comments shortly before resigning as FDA Commissioner in May of 2019 and joining the Board of Directors of Pfizer, Inc., a vaccine manufacturer, in June of 2019. [11]</p> <p>Any future federal mandates in the U.S. may apply to adults as well as children. The CDC has <em>both </em>a childhood vaccine schedule and an adult one. [12] The feds have explicitly stated the goals of increasing overall vaccination rates and increasing rates specifically in the adult population. These goals are discussed in the National Vaccine Plan (NVP) and the National Adult Immunization Plan (NAIP), respectively, which can be found on HHS’s website. [13] [14]</p> <p>Argentina, Italy and France are examples of countries that have recently issued vaccine mandates at the federal level and Argentina’s mandates <em>apply to both children and adults</em>. [15] [16] In December of 2018, Argentina enacted a law mandating its entire 20 vaccine schedule upon both children and adults, with proof of vaccination required not only to attend school but also to obtain important government documents such as passports, driver’s licenses and Argentina’s National Identity Documents. [17] Some believe that Argentina’s vaccine policy may serve as a blueprint for other countries, including the U.S.</p> <p>Federal mandates are expected to be based upon the CDC’s vaccine schedules which, as discussed below, are rapidly expanding. Also discussed below are vaccine safety concerns that should be considered in connection with the mandate issue.</p> <p><strong>The CDC vaccine schedules are growing, requiring safety testing of the cumulative and combined effects of the vaccines on the schedules.</strong></p> <p>As discussed above, special protections from liability have been put into place for the manufacturers of most vaccines. This unique legal framework has greatly increased vaccine profitability and, since it’s implementation, the number of vaccines recommended by the vaccine industry and the CDC has grown significantly.</p> <p>In 1983, prior to the aforementioned removal of liability, the CDC recommended 24 doses of 7 childhood vaccines. [18] The CDC now recommends 70 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18. [19]</p> <p>With the growing number of recommended vaccines, a person receiving all of the recommended doses on both the CDC’s childhood and adult schedules would receive a lifetime total of approximately 149 vaccine doses. [20] Further, hundreds of new vaccines are being developed and it’s expected that many will be added to the schedules. According to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, as of late 2017, there were over 260 vaccines in development by American companies alone. [21]</p> <p>The growing vaccine schedules are particularly concerning in light of some vaccine ingredients. Although ingredients differ by vaccine type, generally, vaccines contain a myriad of toxic or concerning substances. Examples are aluminum, human DNA, animal DNA, antibiotics, formaldehyde, mercury, Polysorbate 80, bovine extract, egg protein, and monosodium glutamate (MSG). [22] [23] [24] Any potential for harm from these ingredients is increased when the number of vaccine doses rises and when vaccines are given in combination. Surprisingly, despite the fact that the CDC’s childhood schedule includes recommendations for receiving doses of multiple vaccines in the same office visit (as many as nine in one visit), the CDC hasn’t required safety testing of the vaccines in these combinations. [25]</p> <p>Aluminum is an example of a vaccine ingredient that may be problematic with cumulative exposure. A recent study in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology found that the 2019 CDC childhood vaccine schedule is 15.9 times over the recommended safe level of aluminum when researchers adjusted for body weight and estimated that a child who followed the schedule would be in a state of “chronic toxicity” for 70% of the child’s first seven months of life. [26] [27] Further, studies have associated aluminum with autoimmune diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, autism and with behavioral abnormalities in animals. [28]</p> <p>If the CDC’s vaccine schedules are mandated by federal law, Americans will continue to be subject to them even as more vaccines and doses are added.</p> <p>Additionally, federal vaccine mandates may open the door to federal mandates for other medical interventions without informed consent. This could, for example, include the federal government mandating that children demonstrating emotional problems in school be forced to submit to a mental health evaluation by a government approved provider and to whatever psychiatric drugs are recommended by the provider, without the child’s or parents’ consent. The precedent set by federal vaccine mandates will set the stage for further expansion of federal control over individuals’ medical decisions.</p> <p><strong>Vaccines are not subject to placebo-controlled studies.</strong></p> <p>The FDA classifies vaccines as “biologics” rather than “drugs,” thereby allowing vaccine manufacturers to forego the multi-year, double-blind inert placebo-controlled studies required for drug approval. [29] Almost all vaccine safety studies are conducted without a control group of unvaccinated individuals receiving nothing but an inert placebo. [30] Generally, if a “control group” is used during a vaccine safety study, <em>the group receives a substance which is not inert</em>, such as another vaccine or an adjuvant such as aluminum. [31] For example, when Merck conducted clinical trials for Gardasil 9 it used the original Gardasil vaccine as the “placebo” in the control groups and both vaccines contain an aluminum adjuvant. [32]</p> <p>Just as the FDA hasn’t required vaccines to undergo true placebo-controlled studies for approval, the CDC hasn’t required its schedules of recommended vaccines to undergo studies comparing those vaccinated in accordance with the schedules with a “control group” of unvaccinated individuals. This is despite evidence indicating that unvaccinated children, or children receiving less than the full CDC schedule of vaccines, may have better health outcomes than those who receive the full schedule. For example, on July 18, 2019 Children’s Health Defense posted an article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. entitled “Fully Vaccinated v. Unvaccinated – A Summary of the Research” summarizing the results of multiple vaccinated/unvaccinated studies conducted since 1999 which indicate a higher incidence of chronic diseases and brain and immune system injuries among the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. [33]<strong> </strong></p> <p>Another article posted by the Children’s Health Defense team on March 19, 2019 entitled “Real-Life Data Show that the CDC Vaccine Schedule is Causing Harm” discusses <em>ten years</em> of practice data from Dr. Paul Thomas, a Board-certified pediatrician in Oregon, which reflects that the unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children in Dr. Thomas’ practice had dramatically lower risks of autism compared to children vaccinated according to the CDC schedule. [34]</p> <p><strong>Vaccines require additional testing for potential autoimmune and other chronic health effects. </strong></p> <p>Vaccines are subject to very short periods of monitoring for adverse reactions, often of 14 days or less. [35] [36] Short monitoring periods are particularly concerning because research has shown a possible connection between vaccines and medical conditions that develop over longer periods of time, such as autoimmune disorders.</p> <p>In the past several decades, autoimmune disorders have become increasingly common in the U.S. and other high-income countries and they’re now estimated to affect approximately 5% to 10% of the population in such countries. [37] In a 2018 article, researchers reviewed evidence potentially linking influenza, hepatitis B and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines to vaccine-induced autoimmunity. [38] Another 2018 study discussed evidence potentially linking yeast protein-containing HPV and hepatitis B vaccines to autoimmune disorders such as vitiligo, narcolepsy, hypothyroidism, systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis. [39] Additionally, a recent study <strong>concluded that vaccines containing animal, plant and fungal proteins may be inducing numerous autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and others. [40]</strong></p> <p>Further information discussing the possible connection between vaccines and autoimmune disorders can be found in a book by Thomas Cowan, MD published in 2018 entitled <em>Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness. </em>[41]</p> <p><strong>Vaccines require additional testing for their potential to impair fertility.</strong></p> <p>Another safety concern about vaccines is evidence linking some to diminished fertility. For example, multiple studies have found a statistically significant increase in miscarriages in women who have received an influenza vaccine. [42] Research also points to increased risks for miscarriage and ovarian failure in connection with the Gardasil and Gardasil 9 vaccines. [43] According to an article posted on May 21, 2019, by the Children’s Health Defense team entitled “25 Reasons to Avoid the Gardasil Vaccine” Gardasil and Gardasil 9 clinical trials showed high spontaneous miscarriage rates of 25% and 27.4% respectively, which were significantly higher than the background rates of approximately 10% – 15%. [44]</p> <p><strong>Vaccines require additional testing for their potential to cause autism.</strong></p> <p>The CDC asserts that “vaccines do not cause autism” and that “there is no link between vaccines and autism.” [45] Further, the media repeatedly reports that vaccines have been scientifically cleared of any role in causing autism. However, these assertions are thoroughly refuted by J.B. Handley’s book <em>How to End the Autism Epidemic</em>, published in 2018.</p> <p>In Handley’s book, he reviews twenty-seven studies cited by the Autism Science Foundation which are generally relied upon as “proof” that vaccines don’t cause autism and explains that the studies researched only one vaccine, the MMR vaccine, and one vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, for a relationship to autism. [46] He also discusses significant flaws in the studies. [47] He additionally points out the lack of research analyzing <em>the full childhood vaccine schedule</em> for any possible relationship to autism. [48]</p> <p>Handley’s book further reviews eleven groundbreaking scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals since 2004 which <em>do</em> indicate that vaccines have played a role in inducing autism in children. [49] The book also discusses the increased amount of aluminum U.S. children receive, noting that the amount has nearly quadrupled since the early 1990s as the result of increased vaccinations, and further notes that <em>aluminum was included in childhood vaccines without having been safety tested in children</em>. [50] Handley’s book also contains a detailed discussion of aluminum’s use in vaccines to intentionally hyper-stimulate the immune system and evidence that the aluminum is accumulating in children’s brains, triggering immune activation events implicated in autism. [51]</p> <p>Additional evidence that aluminum in vaccines can cause autism is provided in the Informed Consent Action Network paper entitled “Autism and Aluminum Adjuvants in Vaccines How Aluminum Adjuvants in Vaccines Can Cause Autism” which was published on August 18, 2017. [52]</p> <p><strong>States should resist vaccine mandates which place decision-making in the hands of bureaucrats.</strong></p> <p>As demonstrated by the above discussion, the scientific issues related to vaccines are highly complex and the safety of the CDC’s vaccines schedules has not been established. In light of this, it’s critical that individuals retain the right to make vaccination decisions based upon the advice of their chosen medical professionals rather than relinquishing this right to bureaucratic mandates. HB 1235 would be a strong step in this direction. As we have seen with marijuana, federal regulation becomes ineffective when states enact contradictory policies. If multiple states pass laws like HB 1235 which preserve the public’s rights regarding vaccinations, it will become difficult for the federal government to enforce any future federal mandates.</p> <p><strong>Status of HB1235</strong></p> <p>On February 10, 2020, HB1235 was referred to the House Health and Human Services Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <p><strong>NOTES</strong></p> <p>[1] <a href="https://www.nvic.org/injury-compensation/nvic-position-on-1986-childhood-vaccine-injury-act.aspx">https://www.nvic.org/injury-compensation/nvic-position-on-1986-childhood-vaccine-injury-act.aspx</a></p> <p>[2] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefe State Bills Vaccines CDC FDA HB1235 South Dakota Davis Taylor Utah House Passes Bill to Expand Raw Milk Sales, Reject Federal Prohibition Scheme https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/utah-house-passes-bill-to-expand-raw-milk-sales-reject-federal-prohibition-scheme/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:489beb88-3ef6-ec6e-8cf5-13a7d6c76883 Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:18:46 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/utah-house-passes-bill-to-expand-raw-milk-sales-reject-federal-prohibition-scheme/" title="Utah House Passes Bill to Expand Raw Milk Sales, Reject Federal Prohibition Scheme" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (Feb. 17, 2020) – Last Friday, the Utah House unanimously passed a bill that would further expand raw milk sales in the state. Final passage of this bill would take another important step toward rejecting a federal prohibition scheme in effect. Rep. Kim Coleman (R-West Jordan) filed House Bill 134 (HB134) [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/utah-house-passes-bill-to-expand-raw-milk-sales-reject-federal-prohibition-scheme/" title="Utah House Passes Bill to Expand Raw Milk Sales, Reject Federal Prohibition Scheme" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>SALT LAKE CITY</strong>, Utah (Feb. 17, 2020) – Last Friday, the Utah House unanimously passed a bill that would further expand raw milk sales in the state. Final passage of this bill would take another important step toward rejecting a federal prohibition scheme in effect.<span id="more-34243"></span></p> <p>Rep. Kim Coleman (R-West Jordan) filed House Bill 134 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/UT/bill/HB0134/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB134</a>) for the 2020 legislative session. The bill would expand raw milk sales to allow permit holders to sell raw milk cream and butter. The current law only allows the sale of pure raw milk even by those holding a permit.</p> <p>On Feb. 14, the House <a href="https://legiscan.com/UT/rollcall/HB0134/id/923868" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">passed HB134 by a 60-0 vote</a>.</p> <p>HB134 builds on an expansion of raw milk sales Gov. Gary Herbert <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/now-in-effect-utah-law-expands-raw-milk-sales-an-important-step-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">signed into law</a> in 2018. Under that new law, a milk producer can sell up to 120 gallons of raw milk per month to consumers without meeting stricter requirements under the current permitting program, providing certain conditions are met.</p> <p>Passage of HB134 would not only take another step toward opening up the raw milk market in the state; it would also advance 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; they also claim the authority to ban unpasteurized milk <em>within the borders of a state</em>.</p> <p>“It is within HHS’s authority…to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well,” FDA officials wrote in response to a <a href="http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund </a>lawsuit against the agency over the interstate ban.</p> <p>The FDA clearly wants complete prohibition of raw milk and some insiders say it’s only a matter of time before the feds try to institute an absolute ban. Armed raids by FDA agents on companies like Rawsome Foods back in 2011 and Amish farms over the last few years also indicate this scenario may not be too far off.</p> <p>When states allow the sale of raw milk within their borders, it takes an important step toward nullifying this federal prohibition scheme.</p> <p>We saw this demonstrated dramatically in states that legalized industrial hemp even as the federal government maintained virtual prohibition. When states authorized production, farmers began growing industrial hemp, even in the face of a federal ban. Despite facing the possibility of federal prosecution, some growers were still willing to step into the void and begin cultivating the plant once the state removed its barriers. Eventually, the pressure on the feds led to <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/26/feds-legalize-hemp-but-not-cbd-states-can-continue-to-nullify-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the repeal of hemp prohibition</a>.</p> <p>In the same way, removing state barriers to raw milk consumption, sale and production would undoubtedly spur the creation of new markets for unpasteurized dairy products, no matter what the feds claim the power to do.</p> <p>It could ultimately nullify the interstate ban as well. If all 50 states allow raw milk, markets within the states could easily grow to the point that local sales would render the federal ban on interstate commerce pointless. And history indicates the feds do not have the resources to stop people from transporting raw milk across state lines – especially if multiple states start legalizing it. Growing markets will quickly overwhelm any federal enforcement attempts.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB134 will not move to the Senate for further consideration. At the time of this report, it had not been assigned to a Senate 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-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Raw Milk State Bills FDA food freedom HB134 unpasteurized milk Utah Mike Maharrey Another Massive Budget Deficit to Start 2020 https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/17/another-massive-budget-deficit-to-start-2020/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:0c5904b1-edd3-04be-0d33-403b50b06cea Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:40:17 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/17/another-massive-budget-deficit-to-start-2020/" title="Another Massive Budget Deficit to Start 2020" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />The Trump administration posted another massive budget deficit to start out calendar-year 2020. According to the latest data released by the U.S. Treasury Department, Uncle Sam spent $32.6 billion more than it took in last month. That compares with an $8.7 billion surplus in January 2019. Analysts had projected an $11.5 billion shortfall in January. That [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/17/another-massive-budget-deficit-to-start-2020/" title="Another Massive Budget Deficit to Start 2020" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>The Trump administration posted another massive budget deficit to start out calendar-year 2020.<span id="more-29075"></span></p> <p>According to the <a href="https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0120.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">latest data released by the U.S. Treasury Department</a>, Uncle Sam spent $32.6 billion more than it took in last month. That compares with an $8.7 billion surplus in January 2019. Analysts had projected an $11.5 billion shortfall in January.<span id="more-24596"></span></p> <p>That brings the total deficit in FY2020 to $389.2 billion. So far, the deficit in fiscal 2020 is about $79 billion bigger than it was at this point in FY2019, a 25 percent gain.</p> <p>According to the Congressional Budget Office, the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/02/making-deficits-huge-again/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">federal budget shortfall will hit $1.02 trillion in FY 2020</a> and rise into the foreseeable future.  The CBO warns that the ballooning national debt poses a “significant risk” to the economy and financial system.</p> <p>Overspending continues to drive the ever-widening deficits. The federal government took in $372 billion in January. That was a 10 percent increase in revenue compared with January 2019. But spending was up $405 billion. That represents a 22 percent increase year-on-year.</p> <p>Through just the first four months of FY2020, Trump and company have already spent nearly $1.5 trillion.</p> <p>These are the kind of budget deficits one would expect to see during a major economic downturn. The federal government has only run deficits over $1 trillion in four fiscal years, all during the Great Recession. We’re approaching that number today, despite having what Trump keeps calling “the greatest economy in the history of America.”</p> <p>Generally, during economic expansions, government spending on social programs shrinks and tax revenues climb with increased economic activity. Revenues have increased over the last year, even with the Republican tax cuts, but they haven’t kept pace with the increase in government spending.</p> <p>President Trump didn’t even mention the growing national debt during his State of the Union address. As Peter Schiff noted in a tweet, “During his 90-minute <span class="hash">#</span><span class="link-complex-target">SOTU</span> address President Trump did not urge Congress to cut one dime of government spending, or eliminate one government agency or department, even as the national debt is soaring by record amounts during an economy he claims is booming.”</p> <p>Much has been made in cuts to social programs in Trump&#8217;s proposed 2021 budget. But there are spending increases in other areas and the overall spending plan comes in at $4.8 trillion compared to $4.4 trillion in actual outlays during FY2019.</p> <p>Republicans argue that economic growth will ultimately fix the national debt. The Trump plan claims to balance the budget in 15 years. But this scenario depends on 3 percent GDP growth every year and no recession. Last year, GDP growth was 2.3 percent.</p> <p>The CBO warns that the growing “debt would dampen economic output over time.”</p> <p>In fact, studies have shown that GDP growth decreases by an average of about 30 percent when government debt exceeds 90% of an economy. Total U.S. debt already <a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">stands at around 106.9 percent of GDP</a>. Ever since the US national debt exceeded 90 percent of GDP in 2010, inflation-adjusted average GDP growth has been 33 percent below the average from 1960–2009, a period that included eight recessions.</p> <p><a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/government-stimulus-doesnt-stimulate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Europe’s spending binge serves as a prime example</a> of the impact of debt on economic growth.</p> <p>The reality is America’s fiscal condition is circling the drain. The bottom line is that the spending trajectory is unsustainable. If the U.S. government is running $1 trillion deficits now, what will the country’s financial situation look like when the next recession hits?</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Featured budget deficit Government Spending national debt Mike Maharrey 4 of the Worst things “Conservatives” Claim about the Constitution https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/4-of-the-worst-things-conservatives-claim-about-the-constitution/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ca132a3d-5baf-e6bf-637b-fe87ed8a6d3e Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:26:57 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/4-of-the-worst-things-conservatives-claim-about-the-constitution/" title="4 of the Worst things &#8220;Conservatives&#8221; Claim about the Constitution" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/path-021720.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-021720.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-021720-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-021720-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/path-021720-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />While these views are certainly not held by everyone claiming the mantle of &#8220;conservative,&#8221; they are pervasive and long-standing. More ominously, they&#8217;re totally wrong when it comes to the Constitution &#8211; and dangerous to your liberty, too. Path to Liberty: February 17, 2020 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes &#124; Google Play &#124; Stitcher &#124; Spotify &#124; [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/4-of-the-worst-things-conservatives-claim-about-the-constitution/" title="4 of the Worst things &#8220;Conservatives&#8221; Claim about the Constitution" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/path-021720.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-021720.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-021720-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/path-021720-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/path-021720-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>While these views are certainly not held by everyone claiming the mantle of &#8220;conservative,&#8221; they are pervasive and long-standing. More ominously, they&#8217;re totally wrong when it comes to the Constitution &#8211; and dangerous to your liberty, too.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: February 17, 2020<span id="more-34248"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EqjJ_lhJF2Y?start=57" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>PODCAST VERSION</strong></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">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&amp;isi=691797987&amp;ius=googleplaymusic&amp;apn=com.google.android.music&amp;link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ic7vaa26zzqtt2zmxovxwkxktem?t%3DPath_to_Liberty%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Play</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></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://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_8:_Oath_or_affirmation" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Oath of Office</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/25/fourth-amendment-history-behind-unreasonable/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Fourth Amendment: The History Behind “Unreasonable”</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.hoover.org/research/savage-wars-peace" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Max Boot&#8217;s &#8220;History&#8221;</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/thomas-jefferson-vs-the-barbary-pirates/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson vs the Barbary Pirates</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/59937146-2bda-4a88-b405-0d477320649d" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/UlGhgG1KnHHO/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/8ba2f36b-b527-4c3d-a996-752ae99c5e12" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/553506272" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1jMKgQzlAmwJL" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter/videos/190530845384880/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+nJ3hX5QWR" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video Path to Liberty Republocrats Conservatives Max Boot oath of office Republicans Rights War Powers Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 26:41 While these views are certainly not held by everyone claiming the mantle of “conservative,” they are pervasive and long-standing. More ominously, they’re totally wrong when it comes to the Constitution – and dangerous to your liberty, too. While these views are certainly not held by everyone claiming the mantle of “conservative,” they are pervasive and long-standing. More ominously, they’re totally wrong when it comes to the Constitution – and dangerous to your liberty, too. Path to Liberty: February 17, 2020 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | Spotify | […] New Jersey Senate Passes Bill to Expand Medical Marijuana Program through Telemedicine https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-jersey-senate-passes-bill-to-expand-medical-marijuana-program-through-telemedicine/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:606fec83-c541-bdd9-4336-c9e9e9761cbe Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:05:38 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-jersey-senate-passes-bill-to-expand-medical-marijuana-program-through-telemedicine/" title="New Jersey Senate Passes Bill to Expand Medical Marijuana Program through Telemedicine" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />TRENTON, N.J. &#8211; Last week, the New Jersey Senate passed a bill that would expand the state&#8217;s medical-marijuana program to utilize telemedicine despite federal prohibition. Sen. Declan O&#8217;Scanlon (R-Holmdel) introduced Senate Bill 619 (S619) on Jan. 14. The legislation would permit the use of telemedicine and telehealth to authorize patients for medical cannabis and to [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-jersey-senate-passes-bill-to-expand-medical-marijuana-program-through-telemedicine/" title="New Jersey Senate Passes Bill to Expand Medical Marijuana Program through Telemedicine" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>TRENTON</strong>, N.J. &#8211; Last week, the New Jersey Senate passed a bill that would expand the state&#8217;s medical-marijuana program to utilize telemedicine despite federal prohibition.<span id="more-34217"></span></p> <p>Sen. Declan O&#8217;Scanlon (R-Holmdel) introduced Senate Bill 619 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S619/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">S619</a>) on Jan. 14. The legislation would permit the use of telemedicine and telehealth to authorize patients for medical cannabis and to issue written instructions for dispensing medical cannabis. Patients eligible to use telemedicine would include those who are terminally ill, homebound, in hospice care, developmentally disabled, and those who are residents of a long-term care facility.</p> <p>Under the current law, patients must physically visit a doctor. Passage of S619 would make it significantly easier for patients to get approved for medicinal cannabis and expand the program.</p> <p>This is another example of the rapidly expanding availability of marijuana despite federal prohibition.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>New Jersey legalized medical marijuana in 2010. The program languished under Gov. Chris Christie, a staunch opponent of cannabis. When Gov. Phil Murphy took office, he loosened requirements and expanded the number of qualifying medical conditions. The legislature <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/signed-as-law-new-jersey-expands-medical-marijuana-program-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">expanded the program last year</a>.</p> <p>This removed one layer of laws prohibiting marijuana in the stare, but federal prohibition remains in place. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-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>Enactment of S619 would further undermine prohibition and make it that much more difficult for the federal government to enforce it in New Jersey.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>New Jersey is one of a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. In 2018, Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit last year</a> and Michigan passed a ballot measure legalizing cannabis for general use.</p> <p>With 33 states including New Jersey allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.</p> <p>“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.</p> <p>Efforts to expand medical marijuana laws in New Jersey demonstrate another important reality. Once a state puts laws in place legalizing cannabis, they tend to eventually expand. S619 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&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>S619 will not move to the House for further consideration. Once it receives a committee assignment, it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Drug War State Bills cannabis Marijuana Medical Marijuana New Jersey S619 telemedicine Mike Maharrey Maryland Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying, Hinder Federal Surveillance Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/maryland-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-ban-warrantless-stingray-spying-hinder-federal-surveillance-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:014494dd-e9a3-5e02-3818-cec35f05a434 Mon, 17 Feb 2020 11:00:08 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/maryland-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-ban-warrantless-stingray-spying-hinder-federal-surveillance-program/" title="Maryland Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying, Hinder Federal Surveillance Program" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919-768x402.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919-1024x536.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919-1080x565.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Feb. 17, 2020) – Last Tuesday, a Maryland House committee held a hearing on a bill that would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones without a warrant and prohibit police from sweeping up electronic communications. The proposed law would not only protect privacy in Maryland, but it would [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/maryland-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-ban-warrantless-stingray-spying-hinder-federal-surveillance-program/" title="Maryland Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying, Hinder Federal Surveillance Program" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919-768x402.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919-1024x536.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919-1080x565.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/03/stingray-general-031919-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>ANNAPOLIS</strong>, Md. (Feb. 17, 2020) – Last Tuesday, a Maryland House committee held a hearing on a bill that would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones without a warrant and prohibit police from sweeping up electronic communications. The proposed law would not only protect privacy in Maryland, but it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-34216"></span></p> <p>Del. David Moon (D), along with three fellow Democrats, introduced House Bill 499 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB499/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB499</a>) on Jan. 24. The legislation would help block the use of cell-site simulators, known as “<a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/cell-site-simulatorsimsi-catchers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">stingrays</a>.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower. This allows law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.</p> <p>HB499 would add provisions to existing Maryland statutes limiting warrantless location tracking through electronic devices to address the use of cell-site simulators. Under the proposed law, police would be required to get a court order based on probable cause before deploying a stingray device. The proposed law would bar police from using a stingray to obtain communication content and spells out explicit criteria law enforcement must meet in order to justify such an order.</p> <p>The proposed law includes limitations on the use of stingrays even with a court order. These restrictions would require police to restrict the investigative use of any third–party or non-target data without a further court order. The proposed law would require the deletion of any incidentally gathered information on persons not named in the court order within 10 days.</p> <p>Information gathered in violation of the law would be subject to the exclusionary rule as judicially determined. Information gathered on non-targeted devices would not be admissible in court under any circumstances.</p> <p>On Feb. 11, the House Judiciary Committee <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Committees/Media/false?cmte=jud&amp;ys=2020RS&amp;clip=JUD_2_11_2020_meeting_1&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fmgahouse.maryland.gov%2Fmga%2Fplay%2F4e033912-9390-4724-84a2-bed8e4e29b55%2F%3Fcatalog%2F03e481c7-8a42-4438-a7da-93ff74bdaa4c%26playfrom%3D22889500" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">held a hearing on the bill</a>.</p> <p>Last year, an identical bill passed the Maryland House last year by a 140-0 vote, but it died in a Senate committee. During the hearing, Moon reminded committee members that they approved of the measure last year.</p> <p>&#8220;For your testimony for your bill, I have re-uploaded your voting sheet from last year,&#8221; Moon said to a chorus of laughter. &#8220;I kid you not. It&#8217;s on the floor laptops.&#8221;</p> <p>Moon characterized the bill as &#8220;noncontroversial.&#8221; When asked why it died in the Senate last year, he said there was a different committee chair. &#8220;And I will leave it at that.&#8221;</p> <p>State prosecutors also testified, saying they would support the bill if there was an amendment to clear up some vague language.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-stingray-case-20150408-story.html#page=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Baltimore Sun reported</a> in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.</p> <p>Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.</p> <p>“Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.</p> <p>“Yes,” Cabreja said.</p> <p>As <a href="https://privacysos.org/node/1715" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">privacysos.org</a> put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”</p> <p>The <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/06/07/inside-the-secretive-and-intrusive-world-of-stingray-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">experience of a Pinellas County, Florida, man further highlights the shroud of secrecy around the use of stingray devices</a>, along with the potential for abuse of power inherent in America’s law enforcement community.</p> <p>The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.</p> <p>Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal databases.</p> <p>The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p>The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Enactment of HB246 would strike a major blow to the surveillance state and would be a win for privacy.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>The <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Committees/Details?cmte=jud&amp;ys=2020RS&amp;activeTab=divMain" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House Judiciary Committee</a> must pass HB499 by a majority vote before it can move to the House floor.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> State Bills Stingrays cell site simulator HB499 Maryland Privacy stingray surveillance Mike Maharrey The Oregon Standoff: Understanding LaVoy Finicum’s Death & the Management of BLM Land https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/16/oregon-standoff-lavoy-finicum-hammond-bundy-ranchers-took-on-federal-government-blm/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:3a52d2c5-b570-30e9-aff3-d5812e562676 Sun, 16 Feb 2020 13:23:41 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/16/oregon-standoff-lavoy-finicum-hammond-bundy-ranchers-took-on-federal-government-blm/" title="The Oregon Standoff: Understanding LaVoy Finicum’s Death &amp; the Management of BLM Land" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/bigstock-Oregon-1269393-1200.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/bigstock-Oregon-1269393-1200.png 1200w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/bigstock-Oregon-1269393-1200-980x513.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/bigstock-Oregon-1269393-1200-480x251.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1200px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/bigstock-Oregon-1269393-1200-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />The standoff and occupation at Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016 was about more than standing up to the federal government over “grazing fees” on Bureau of Land Management land. Learn the forgotten history of the ranchers and militia who fought for land freedom and 2A rights. <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/16/oregon-standoff-lavoy-finicum-hammond-bundy-ranchers-took-on-federal-government-blm/" title="The Oregon Standoff: Understanding LaVoy Finicum’s Death &amp; the Management of BLM Land" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/bigstock-Oregon-1269393-1200.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/bigstock-Oregon-1269393-1200.png 1200w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/bigstock-Oregon-1269393-1200-980x513.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/bigstock-Oregon-1269393-1200-480x251.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1200px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/bigstock-Oregon-1269393-1200-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>When one talks about the Bundy Family, the first thing that springs to mind is the <a title="what are militias in america" href="https://ammo.com/articles/american-militias-after-civil-war-black-codes-black-panthers#bundy-standoff" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">standoff in Nevada</a> in 2014. However, perhaps even more important is the standoff and occupation at Oregon’s <a title="what is the malheur national wildlife refuge" href="https://www.fws.gov/refuge/malheur/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Malheur National Wildlife Refuge</a> in 2016. Indeed, the two events are often conflated because Ammon Bundy is the son of Cliven Bundy, the man who stood up to the federal government over “grazing fees” on Bureau of Land Management land.</p> <p>The occupation was a highlight for both the <a title="what is a constitutional militia" href="https://ammo.com/articles/american-militias-after-civil-war-black-codes-black-panthers#constitutional-militia" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">militia and the sovereign citizen movement</a> as well as proponents of states’ rights. The main argument from those occupying the land is that the federal government is mandated by law to turn over the land that they manage to the individual states in which the land sits. This, they argued, was particularly true of the <a title="what is the federal BLM" href="https://www.blm.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bureau of Land Management</a>, <a title="what is the USFS" href="https://www.fs.fed.us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">United States Forestry Service</a>, and <a title="what is the US fish and wildlife service" href="https://www.fws.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">United States Fish and Wildlife Service</a> land.</p> <p>The 2016 Oregon standoff was over two ranchers convicted of arson on federal lands – despite the fact that the men, a father and son pair named Dwight and Steven Dwight Hammond, did not want their support.</p> <p><a title="where is harney county" href="https://www.co.harney.or.us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Harney County</a> in rural eastern Oregon is one of the largest counties in the United States by landmass, but one of the smallest when it comes to population. With a mere 7,700 people, cows outnumber humans in Harney by a factor of <a title="oregon population of cows to people" href="https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2016/01/where_is_burns_harney_county_h.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">14-to-1</a>. Nearly three-quarters of the land in the county is federally managed. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was established by then-President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908. It’s a large area of the county and surrounding area at 187,757 acres.</p> <h3>How Federal Land Management Works</h3> <p>While each federal agency manages land differently, it is worth taking a closer look at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a template case for how federal land management works in general.</p> <p>The BLM manages fully <a title="how much land does BLM manage" href="https://www.blm.gov/about/data/public-land-statistics" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">1/8th of all the landmass of the United States</a>. The Bureau was created by then-President Harry S. Truman in 1946, through the combination of two existing federal agencies – the General Land Office and the Grazing Service. Most BLM land is concentrated in 12 Western states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.</p> <p>There’s truth to the idea that BLM lands are largely lands that no one wanted to settle. The actual land is remnants held for homesteading that no homesteaders actually claimed. Ranchers, however, often use the land for grazing with <a title="how many grazing permits are obtained for BLM land" href="https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/rangelands-and-grazing/livestock-grazing" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">18,000 permits and leases held for 155 million acres</a>. There are also over 63,000 gas and oil wells, as well as extensive coal and mineral mining. So while the land might be land that individuals don’t want to live on and farm, it is far from without value.</p> <p>Part of the controversy in both the Nevada and Oregon standoffs was the question of ownership of these public lands. Cliven Bundy did not feel obligated to pay grazing fees for what is ostensibly “public” land that, the argument goes, is not owned by the federal government at all, but no one in particular. Similarly, the men who were convicted of “arson” on federal land weren’t terrorists or thrill-seeking firebugs. It was part of a longer-standing dispute with the federal government over their right to graze cattle on the land that started with the pair doing controlled burns that <em>became</em> uncontrolled. They became a cause celebre for the Bundy crew because they were another symbol of the conflict over who rightfully owned the land.</p> <p>This comes down to a question of ownership: Can the federal government simply decide that it “owns” 1/8th of the country that is supposed to be set aside for the general public? Does the federal government have such authority or does this authority reside with the states? Homesteading was technically still allowed until 1976 (1986 in Alaska), but the formation of the BLM in 1964 effectively spelled the end of homesteading in the lower 48. The argument of Ammon Bundy and company was that the federal government had no such authority, which instead rested with the states.</p> <p>In a certain sense, this is a purely academic question. In another sense, the federal government owns whatever it says it does, because who is going to say otherwise? However, this was the theory and argument that underpinned the occupation of the Wildlife Refuge.</p> <h3>What is Agenda 21?</h3> <p>It is briefly worth addressing “<a title="what is agenda 21" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Age</a>n<a title="what is agenda 21" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">da 21</a>” before moving on, as many of those involved in the standoff believed in this. The veracity of Agenda 21 is not important for our purposes. What is important is that <a title="how protesters saw america under threat" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2016/05/21/armed-with-guns-and-constitutions-the-patriot-movement-sees-america-under-threat/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">many of the people involved in the standoff believed it to be true</a>.</p> <p>Agenda 21 is a name for a supposed United Nations statement on reducing the world population from above 7 billion to below 1 billion. Those who believe this is a goal of the United Nations believe that it will take place effectively by hoarding everyone off of the land and into cities, where they will be reliant upon others for food production. They also believe that it will take the form of state-funded or state-mandated abortions. In some cases, they believe that autism caused by vaccines is a way to lower the population since people with autism are far less likely to have children than those without.</p> <p>This is an important context for the standoff because some of those involved believed that they were not fighting for the freedom of two men they believed to be wrongfully convicted of arson or even over obscure questions of natural and Constitutional law, but for their very lives, livelihood and posterity against a tyrannical would-be one-world government. One does not need to agree with the world view of these people to see it as an important factor in the standoff.</p> <h3>Who Are Bundy and Finicum?</h3> <p>Ammon Bundy is a name probably known to many readers of this website. He is the son of Cliven Bundy, the man who had previously stood up to the BLM over grazing rights in Nevada in 2014. Ammon had recently formed the group Citizens for Constitutional Freedom. A faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Ammon believed, as did his father, that his resistance to the federal government was not merely political, but specifically ordered by God.</p> <p>Lavoy Finicum, also a member of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, was another leader of the movement. Like Cliven Bundy, Finicum decided that he was no longer going to pay grazing fees to the BLM. He published <a title="Finicum's video against the federal government" href="https://onecowboystandforfreedom.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a video on YouTube</a> where he stated that he did not believe that it was legal for the federal government to own the land in question, and cited Cliven Bundy as a direct inspiration for his new stand against the federal government. He refused to pay $12,000 in fees accrued in under six months.</p> <p>Finicum had also been on the federal radar after he was erroneously named in a case against William Keebler, who planted a bomb at a BLM cabin. If there are any MSNBC viewers out there, you might know Finicum as <a title="who is tarp man" href="http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/-tarpman-makes-his-late-night-debut-598149187806" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">“tarp man”</a> due to his omnipresent blue tarp that he used to protect himself from the elements.</p> <h3>Background: The Hammond Arson Case</h3> <p>It’s not necessary to get too lost in the weeds on the Hammond arson case, however, it does bear a simple retelling. Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr. and his son Steven Dwight Hammond were convicted of two counts of arson in 2012, in relation to two fires they set in 2001 and 2006. The pair agreed not to appeal their sentences in exchange for having other charges dropped. The father served three months and the son served a year and a day, the whole of their sentence.</p> <p>After release, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (who else?) demanded that they be resentenced. The pair were resentenced for five years, with credit for time served and ordered to return to prison. They were eventually <a title="Trump's pardon of the hammond ranchers" href="https://www.npr.org/2018/07/10/627653866/president-trump-pardons-ranchers-dwight-and-steven-hammond-over-arson" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pardoned by President Trump on July 10, 2018</a>. However, in the interim, Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne made plans for what they called a peaceful protest. The Hammonds eventually rejected the help of this protest, but it went ahead anyway.</p> <p>On November 5, 2015, Bundy arranged a meeting with Sheriff David Ward for later that day. Bundy and Payne insisted that the sheriff do all that he could to protect the Hammonds from returning to prison. Ward explained that there wasn’t much he could do. He also reported that Bundy and Payne became somewhat threatening and aggressive when he told them this. It was then that the specter of an armed militia was raised.</p> <p>In early December 2015, both Bundy and Hammond had moved to the area. They began organizing a “<a title="what is a committee of safety" href="https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2015/12/militiamen_ranchers_in_showdow.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Committee of Safety</a>” modeled on those of the Revolutionary period. Local residents began to notice a lot of outsiders in the community at this time and they weren’t exactly a welcome addition – many would aggressively ask locals about their opinion on the matter. Local police and federal employees in the area reported that they, their spouses and even their children had been <a title="how locals felt threatened by militia members" href="https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/01/residents_near_oregon_occupati.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">followed home or to school by militia members. </a>Open carry became common in a place where, previously, it had not.</p> <p>The situation was incredibly tense. There were two public forums early in January 2016, designed to defuse tensions between locals and militia members. After a peaceful January 2nd protest ended, Ammon Bundy urged people to join him in an armed occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.</p> <h3>The Standoff at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge</h3> <p>Ammon and Ryan Bundy moved to the refuge with a number of armed participants and began setting up defensive positions. Law enforcement largely avoided the refuge due to the tense situation and the presence of armed militia members, however, federal, state and county law enforcement swarmed the general area, including an FBI command center at the local airport. There were also paid informants within the group of occupiers. The standoff continued for six weeks, largely without incident. There was a lot of bluster, mostly from the Bundy camp, but not much happened for the most part. Court orders were issued and ignored. January 6th saw a fistfight between a group called “Veterans on Patrol” and militants in the refuge.</p> <p>Indeed, the occupation was largely uneventful, save for the death of <a title="who is lavoy finicum" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVoy_Finicum" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LaVoy Finicum</a>. On January 26th, Finicum left the refuge with other leaders and supporters of the occupation in a two-truck convoy. It was here that federal authorities attempted to arrest him for the first time using a traffic stop. Ammon Bundy and Brian Cavalier were peacefully arrested at this time.</p> <p>Finicum was quite nearly arrested. His truck was stopped and hit with a 40mm plastic-tipped round of pepper spray. It was at this time that he refused to kill the engine on his truck and informed officers that the only way they were going to prevent him from reaching his rendezvous point was to shoot him. He is reported to have yelled at the Oregon State Police: &#8220;You back down or you kill me now. Go ahead. Put the bullet through me. I don&#8217;t care. I&#8217;m going to go meet the sheriff. You do as you damned well please.&#8221;</p> <p>Seven minutes after the stop, Finicum drove off in his truck with two passengers. His truck became stuck in the snow before a roadblock. He narrowly avoided hitting an FBI agent. He ran out of his truck and was fired upon twice by the Oregon State Police, which they did not initially disclose. One hit his truck and the other went wild as Finicum moved around in the snow. According to the FBI, he alternated between holding his hands up and reaching toward his jacket where he had a loaded semi-automatic weapon.</p> <p>According to the Oregon State Police, Finicum repeatedly yelled, &#8220;You&#8217;re going to have to shoot me!&#8221; and the officers considered him a lethal threat to an officer armed only with a taser. They claimed that he reached for his pocket. Two officers fired a total of three times with a third officer holding his fire when he realized that a fourth shot wasn’t needed. He was provided with medical assistance <a title="did finicum reach for a weapon" href="https://katu.com/news/local/fbi-finicum-nearly-struck-agent-reached-for-loaded-weapon-before-he-was-shot-and-killed" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">10 minutes after the shooting</a>. Finicum’s supporters note that he was struggling in the snow, which might account for his strange movements. They also note that at no time did he threaten to produce a weapon.</p> <p>According to <a title="watch the documentary american standoff" href="https://youtu.be/H6GAoqvK5s0?t=4451" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">footage and witnesses featured in the documentary <em>American Standoff</em></a>, officers shot Finicum the moment he stepped out of his truck with his hands up, and continued to fire shots at the vehicle as well as gas the other two passengers. Finicum, it is also worth noting, was a sitting duck with multiple law enforcement agents sitting behind cover and him in the open snow. And, of course, it bears repeating that the FBI fired first, then lied about it.</p> <p>Even more damning is that Finicum and the others were headed to a town hall arranged by the local sheriff. Rather than being given safe passage – something that might have defused tensions – he was ambushed, with women and children in the car no less.</p> <h3>Aftermath of the Occupation</h3> <p><a title="who is joseph astarita" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/08/10/fbi-agent-acquitted-of-lying-about-shooting-of-militia-member-after-malheur-standoff/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FBI Agent W. Joseph Astarita</a> was prosecuted for five counts of lying to investigators in relation to Finicum’s death. He was acquitted on all of them. <a title="watch the finicum standoff incident" href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/01/29/oregon-wildlife-refuge-lavoy-finicum-shot-on-tape-bretzing-sot.koin" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A tape of the incident</a> was released to the public, however, as is often the case, people saw what they wanted to see. The Finicum family commissioned a <a title="finicum's private autopsy" href="https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/02/post_6.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">private autopsy</a>, but did not share the results with the public. Finicum&#8217;s widow Jeanette <a title="finicum's family's suit against the oregon state police" href="https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/08/lavoy_finicums_widow_announces.html#incart_river_index_topics" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">filed suit</a> against the Oregon State Police, while his family filed a <a title="finicum's family's suit against the federal government" href="https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2018/01/finicum_family_files_wrongful.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrongful death suit</a> against the federal government, the State of Oregon, the Bureau of Land Management and many other public officials and government organizations.</p> <p>The occupation continued for another two weeks but had largely lost steam as the militants’ leaders had mostly been arrested or surrendered or both. On the afternoon of February 10th, some remaining militants drove past a roadblock at high speed. Michele Fiore attempted to mediate the situation and de-escalate. This resulted in the remaining militants surrendering at 8 a.m. the next day.</p> <p>All told, 27 militants were arrested in relation to the occupation, 26 of these for a single federal count of conspiracy to impede officers of the U.S. from discharging their official duties through the use of force, intimidation, or threats. Several of these were indicted on state charges as well.</p> <h3>Why Does the Oregon Standoff Matter?</h3> <p>The standoff in Oregon matters for two main reasons: First, it is yet another example of how an armed population can sway the hand of government. Remember that the Hammonds eventually were pardoned. But more than this, it provides a lesson in how <em>not </em>to go about resistance.</p> <p>There is nothing to be gained by occupying an area where the local population is unsupportive. In the case of the Oregon occupation, while many in the area were sympathetic to the Hammonds and expressed such at public forums designed to mediate between the locals and the militia, the militants were largely outsiders who had come into the area to support someone who didn’t even want their support. For their part, the militiamen weren’t by all accounts going out of their way to win hearts and minds.</p> <p>None of this requires absolving the federal government or the Oregon State Police for their role in the matter. It does, however, shine a light on the role of optics and tactics when confronting federal power. All things considered, this might not have been the right battle to pick.</p> <p>But there is another side of this story: It is incumbent upon law enforcement to take the high road, to exercise restraint and to look for peaceful solutions rather than going in guns blazing and ratcheting up the tensions. While the local sheriff seems to have made efforts to decrease tensions, they ultimately failed to stop the feds and the state police from intensifying the situation. The proof is that Finicum is dead.</p> <p>There is one last point to be made, however: Despite the outcome, the federal government now has another example to look Federal Agencies Land Ammon Bundy BLM Hammond Arson Case LaVoy Finicum Malheur Oregon Standoff Sam Jacobs Missouri Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Take on Federal Gun Control; Past, Present and Future https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/missouri-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-take-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-future/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ea82f1c3-1048-b0bd-0a78-96e6bbd6b386 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 22:39:20 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/missouri-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-take-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-future/" title="Missouri Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Take on Federal Gun Control; Past, Present and Future" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/2A-2020-missouri-021420.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/2A-2020-missouri-021420.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/2A-2020-missouri-021420-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/2A-2020-missouri-021420-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/2A-2020-missouri-021420-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Feb. 14, 2020) &#8211; Yesterday, a Missouri Senate committee held a hearing on a bill that would set the foundation to create a “gun rights sanctuary state” by banning state and local enforcement of most federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/missouri-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-take-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-future/" title="Missouri Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Take on Federal Gun Control; Past, Present and Future" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/2A-2020-missouri-021420.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/2A-2020-missouri-021420.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/2A-2020-missouri-021420-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/2A-2020-missouri-021420-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/2A-2020-missouri-021420-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (Feb. 14, 2020) &#8211; Yesterday, a Missouri Senate committee held a hearing on a bill that would set the foundation to create a “gun rights sanctuary state” by banning state and local enforcement of most federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state in practice and effect.<span id="more-34233"></span></p> <p>Sen. Eric Burlison (R-Battlefield) introduced Senate Bill 588 (<a href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/20info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=26838083" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB588</a>) on Jan 8. Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, or regulations” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.</p> <p>On Feb. 13, the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee held a hearing on SB588. A number of people testified in favor of the bill, including a former police officer and judge who serves as executive director of the Columbia Police Officers Association. He explained how the proposed law would actually protect police officers who refuse to cooperate with unconstitutional federal gun control. The only testimony against the bill came from a representative of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. An activist present at the hearing called her testimony &#8220;ineffective.&#8221;</p> <p><strong>HOUSE COMPANION BILL</strong></p> <p>Rep. Jered Taylor (R-Republic) introduced the House companion bill, House Bill 1637 (<a href="https://www.house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB1637&amp;year=2020&amp;code=R" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB1637</a>). Yesterday, the Speaker of the House referred the bill to the <a href="https://www.house.mo.gov/committees.aspx?category=all&amp;committee=2221&amp;year=2020&amp;code=R&amp;cluster=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House General Laws Committee</a>. A committee assignment is a significant step forward in the Missouri process. House speakers have been known to drag their feet on committee assignments as a way to kill a bill.</p> <p>Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center say committee chair <a href="https://www.house.mo.gov/MemberDetails.aspx?year=2020&amp;code=R&amp;district=089" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rep. Dean Plocher</a> (R-St. Louis) has committed to bring the bill up for a hearing.</p> <p>The bill is currently up to 66 cosponsors. That&#8217;s just 16 short of the number of votes necessary to pass the bill.</p> <p>Both bills include a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:</p> <ul> <li>taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect on firearms ownership;</li> <li>registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;</li> <li>any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.</li> </ul> <p>The proposed law defines “law-abiding citizen” as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.”</p> <p>Under the proposed law, infringement on the right to keep and bear arms would include the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Pres. Trump’s <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/10/states-should-nullify-trumps-unconstitutional-bump-stock-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bump-stock ban</a>, proposed federal “red-flag laws,” and any future gun control schemes implemented by the federal government.</p> <p>The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.</p> <blockquote><p>“Sovereign, official, or qualified immunity shall not be an affirmative defense in such actions.”</p></blockquote> <p>The bills also include provisions that would apply to federal agents who knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringing acts identified in the law, or who give material aid and support to such enforcement efforts.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.</p> <p>In other words, Missouri law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in Missouri law enforcement again.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most 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>Some gun-rights supporters have argued that such a measure is “unnecessary” because it addresses a nonexistent problem with a divided Congress and an NRA-backed president. Trump’s bump stock ban obliterates this fallacy. Furthermore, the Trump administration actually <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/29/report-trump-administration-ramps-up-enforcement-of-federal-gun-laws/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ramped up enforcement of federal gun laws in 2017</a>.</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Missouri can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB588 needs to be brought up for a vote in the <a href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/TRAN" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee</a>. It will need to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <p>HB1637 needs to be brought up for a hearing in the <a href="https://www.house.mo.gov/committees.aspx?category=all&amp;committee=2221&amp;year=2020&amp;code=R&amp;cluster=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House General Laws Committee</a>. Supporters should contact their state reps and ask them to cosponsor HB1637 today. <a href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/LegisLookup/default.aspx/leg_lookup.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Contact info at this link</a>.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Federal Gun Control HB1637 Missouri SB588 Second Amendment Preservation Act Mike Maharrey 4 Ways to Guarantee You Lose Liberty https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/4-ways-to-guarantee-you-lose-liberty/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:af216718-4f33-d970-6eed-9638bd3b69c3 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 18:22:45 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/4-ways-to-guarantee-you-lose-liberty/" title="4 Ways to Guarantee You Lose Liberty" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/fast-friday-021420.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/fast-friday-021420.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/fast-friday-021420-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/fast-friday-021420-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/fast-friday-021420-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />From politicians to principles, loyalty and trust &#8211; 4 things to watch for that will surely lead to a los of liberty. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: February 14, 2020 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes &#124; Google Play &#124; Stitcher &#124; Spotify &#124; RSS SHOW LINKS: JOIN TAC Show Archives Subscribe and Review on iTunes [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/4-ways-to-guarantee-you-lose-liberty/" title="4 Ways to Guarantee You Lose Liberty" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/fast-friday-021420.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/fast-friday-021420.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/fast-friday-021420-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/fast-friday-021420-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/fast-friday-021420-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>From politicians to principles, loyalty and trust &#8211; 4 things to watch for that will surely lead to a los of liberty.</p> <p>Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: February 14, 2020<span id="more-34235"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/fh7Y5jCM1Es" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>PODCAST VERSION</strong></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">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&amp;isi=691797987&amp;ius=googleplaymusic&amp;apn=com.google.android.music&amp;link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ic7vaa26zzqtt2zmxovxwkxktem?t%3DPath_to_Liberty%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Play</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></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://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/HB1522/2020" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Virginia HB1522</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/west-virginia-committee-passes-bill-to-end-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">West Virginia Committee Passes Bill to End Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/tri_state/west_virginia/contingent-of-berkeley-county-lawmakers-oppose-national-guard-bill/article_7b1aaf54-bb9f-5399-91c8-226437da3b44.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Airport concerned about National Guard bill</a></p> <p><a href="http://samueladamsreturns.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Loyalty-Sedition-1748.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Samuel Adams: Loyalty and Sedition 1748</a></p> <p><a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/patrick-henry-virginia-ratifying-convention-va/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Patrick Henry speech at Virginia Ratifying Convention</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/ed73a23c-03e0-4b42-bd92-9fe314ad232f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/w0TCTuvd5FD4/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/0ef5dc50-592e-4df4-8f11-ed8aa5f4dc7f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/551887219" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1DXxyeBOypbxM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter/videos/495043401207131/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+aWoNG7QWR" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B8jmjFRHgOe/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6634141150754275328/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video Path to Liberty Patrick Henry Politicians Samuel Adams The opposition Warning Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 11:40 From politicians to principles, loyalty and trust – 4 things to watch for that will surely lead to a los of liberty. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: February 14, 2020 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | Spotify | RSS SHOW... From politicians to principles, loyalty and trust – 4 things to watch for that will surely lead to a los of liberty. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: February 14, 2020 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | Spotify | RSS SHOW LINKS: JOIN TAC Show Archives Subscribe and Review on iTunes […] Wyoming Committee Passes Bill to Take on Future Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/wyoming-committee-passes-bill-future-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d7fde471-0d56-05cd-6c16-e9ea91118ba5 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:47:10 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/wyoming-committee-passes-bill-future-federal-gun-control/" title="Wyoming Committee Passes Bill to Take on Future Federal Gun Control" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Feb. 24, 2020) – Today, a Wyoming House committee passed a bill that takes a step towards protecting the right to keep and bear arms from federal gun control. A coalition of 13 Republicans introduced House Bill 118 (HB118) on Feb. 7. Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/wyoming-committee-passes-bill-future-federal-gun-control/" title="Wyoming Committee Passes Bill to Take on Future Federal Gun Control" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/shutterstock_38620474-wyoming-1200-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>CHEYENNE</strong>, Wyo. (Feb. 24, 2020) – Today, a Wyoming House committee passed a bill that takes a step towards protecting the right to keep and bear arms from federal gun control. <span id="more-34234"></span></p> <p>A coalition of 13 Republicans introduced House Bill 118 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WY/bill/HB0118/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB118</a>) on Feb. 7. Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any “public servant” of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, or regulations statute or ordinance” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms and which is being litigated by the Wyoming attorney general on behalf of the citizens of Wyoming.</p> <p>In short, should the federal government implement any new gun control measures, and the state of Wyoming issue a lawsuit against it, the law would trigger an immediate ban on the enforcement of those measures by the state of Wyoming.</p> <p>The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill this morning by a vote of 7-2.</p> <p>The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” and that they &#8220;shall be objected to and litigated against by the Wyoming attorney general on behalf of the citizens of Wyoming.&#8221; This includes, but is not limited to:</p> <ul> <li>taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect on firearms ownership enacted after July 1, 2020;</li> <li>registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect enacted after July 1, 2020;</li> <li>any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens enacted after July 1, 2020;</li> <li>any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.</li> </ul> <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 most 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>Some gun-rights supporters have argued that such a measure is “unnecessary” because it addresses a nonexistent problem with a divided Congress and an NRA-backed president. Trump’s bump stock ban obliterates this fallacy. Furthermore, the Trump administration actually <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/05/report-trump-ramps-up-enforcement-of-federal-second-straight-year/">ramped up enforcement of federal gun laws in 2017 and 2018</a>.</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Wyoming 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>SMALL STEPS FORWARD, BUT MISSING THE BIGGER PICTURE</strong></p> <p>Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said that while he supports the bill in principle, he sees the measure as taking a far more conservative approach than long-standing sanctuary laws elsewhere.</p> <p>&#8220;The longstanding Oregon immigration sanctuary state law doesn&#8217;t ban enforcement only when there&#8217;s a lawsuit in progress, and it doesn&#8217;t limit the enforcement ban to only those laws passed after a specific date in the future,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The ban has been in effect since day one and never relied on some other action first. Wyoming should certainly move in this direction, and fast.&#8221;</p> <p>First passed in 1987, and still in full effect today, the <a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/181A.820">Oregon &#8220;Sanctuary State&#8221; law</a> reads in part:</p> <p><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">No law enforcement agency of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision of the state shall use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.</span></i></p> <p>As introduced, provisions in HB118 took the same approach to banning enforcement of all federal gun control without first waiting for a lawsuit to start. However, due to intense law enforcement opposition, the committee stripped a number of provisions from the bill.</p> <p>As written, HB118 would have prohibited state enforcement of all federal gun control. The committee also removed a provisions that would have barred federal agents who enforce gun control in Wyoming from ever serving as law enforcement officers in the state. The amended bill also makes it likely the state will resume enforcement of a federal gun control measure if they lose in federal court.</p> <p>Boldin noted that passage of HB118 into law could still represent a small but important step towards liberty. &#8220;At some point, Wyoming is going to need to take a stand against all gun control going back to the National Firearms Act of 1934, because none of it is authorized by the Constitution,&#8221; he said. &#8220;This bill would be a positive step forward as it sets the foundation for the state to reject federal gun control, and Thomas Jefferson himself told us liberty must be gained by &#8216;inches.'&#8221;</p> <p>Referenced here is a <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-16-02-0074">1790 letter from Jefferson to the Rev. Charles Clay</a>:</p> <p><em>&#8220;The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, that we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time, and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.&#8221;</em></p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB118 now heads to the general file of the full House, where it will need to go through debate and a vote to move forward in the process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills firearms Gun Control HB118 Second Amendment Preservation Act Wyoming Mike Maharrey Hawaii Committee Passes Bill to Require Criminal Conviction for Asset Forfeiture https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/hawaii-committee-passes-bill-to-require-criminal-conviction-for-asset-forfeiture/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:0536f86d-b96c-3b41-5eab-9e9f4e85c81f Fri, 14 Feb 2020 16:55:52 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/hawaii-committee-passes-bill-to-require-criminal-conviction-for-asset-forfeiture/" title="Hawaii Committee Passes Bill to Require Criminal Conviction for Asset Forfeiture" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-theft-general-020419-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-theft-general-020419-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-theft-general-020419-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-theft-general-020419-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-theft-general-020419-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />HONOLULU, Hawaii (Feb. 14, 2020) – Yesterday, a House committee passed a bill that would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction in most cases. Passage into law would represent a big step forward to end the practice in Hawaii. A coalition of 13 Democrats introduced House [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/hawaii-committee-passes-bill-to-require-criminal-conviction-for-asset-forfeiture/" title="Hawaii Committee Passes Bill to Require Criminal Conviction for Asset Forfeiture" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-theft-general-020419-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-theft-general-020419-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-theft-general-020419-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-theft-general-020419-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-theft-general-020419-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>HONOLULU</strong>, Hawaii (Feb. 14, 2020) – Yesterday, a House committee passed a bill that would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction in most cases. Passage into law would represent a big step forward to end the practice in Hawaii.<span id="more-34231"></span></p> <p>A coalition of 13 Democrats introduced House Bill 2069 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/HI/bill/HB2069/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB2069</a>) on Jan 21. The legislation would reform Hawaii&#8217;s asset forfeiture laws to require a conviction before prosecutors could move forward with forfeiture proceedings.</p> <p>The proposed law also addresses the &#8220;policing for profit&#8221; motive inherent in the current process by directing all forfeiture proceeds to the state&#8217;s general fund. Under current law, 25 percent of forfeiture funds go to police agencies, 25 percent to prosecuting attorneys and 50 percent to the attorney general.</p> <p>The Institute for Justice <a href="https://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-Hawaii/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">calls Hawaii’s asset forfeiture laws</a> “among the nation’s worst.” As it stands police can take people’s property without even charging them with a crime.</p> <p>Yesterday, the House Judiciary passed the bill with a <a href="https://legiscan.com/HI/rollcall/HB2069/id/923255">10-1 vote</a>.</p> <p>While passage of HB2069 would significantly reform Hawaii’s asset forfeiture laws, it fails to address a loophole that allows state and local police to get around more strict state 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).</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/federal-asset-forfeiture-program-helps-local-police-steal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Equitable Sharing</a>” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.</p> <p>Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state closed the loophole</a> in 2016.</p> <p>The Hawaii House should amend the current legislation with language to close the loophole and opt the state out of equitable sharing.</p> <blockquote> <div>A local, county or state law enforcement agency shall not refer, transfer or otherwise relinquish possession of property seized under state law to a federal agency by way of adoption of the seized property or other means by the federal agency for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Public Law 91 513-Oct. 27, 1970.under the federal Controlled Substances Act or other federal law.</div> <div></div> <div>In a case in which the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized has a value of $50,000 or less, excluding the value of contraband, a local, county or state law enforcement agency or participant in a joint task force or other multijurisdictional collaboration with the federal government (agency) shall transfer responsibility for the seized property to the state prosecuting authority for forfeiture under state law.</div> <div></div> <div>If the federal government prohibits the transfer of seized property and currency to the state prosecuting authority as required by paragraph (1) and instead requires the property be transferred to the federal government for forfeiture under federal law, the agency is prohibited from accepting payment of any kind or distribution of forfeiture proceeds from the federal government.</div> </blockquote> <p>Very few cases exceed the $50,000 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>HB2069 will now move to the full House for further debate and a vote.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing Hawaii HB2069 Michael Boldin On the Stone Sentencing https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/on-the-stone-sentencing/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ab7b80b8-706c-dc39-28cc-82375c3cdc48 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 15:01:54 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/on-the-stone-sentencing/" title="On the Stone Sentencing" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-191x100.jpg 191w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-50x26.jpg 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-75x39.jpg 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />With the uproar over the Roger Stone sentencing episode, including supposed presidential bullying of the Attorney General and the Attorney General&#8217;s supposed interference in the prosecution, it seems appropriate to review basic constitutional points. (1) The President is the federal government&#8217;s chief law enforcement officer.  As Professor Saikrishna Prakash has said (in 134 pages), that is &#8220;The Essential [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/on-the-stone-sentencing/" title="On the Stone Sentencing" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-191x100.jpg 191w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-50x26.jpg 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-75x39.jpg 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/08/white-house-1200-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>With the <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pelosi-accuses-trump-of-abusing-power-by-interfering-in-roger-stone-case/ar-BBZY645?ocid=msn360">uproar</a> over the Roger Stone sentencing episode, including supposed presidential bullying of the Attorney General and the Attorney General&#8217;s supposed interference in the prosecution, it seems appropriate to review basic constitutional points.</p> <p>(1) The President is the federal government&#8217;s chief law enforcement officer.  As Professor Saikrishna Prakash has said (in 134 pages), that is <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=223757">&#8220;The Essential Meaning of the Executive Power,&#8221;</a> which Article II, Section 1 vests in the President.  This power encompasses the power to bring prosecutions, to decline to bring prosecutions (prosecutorial discretion) and to recommend sentences.  Although there are a range of academic views regarding the powers of the President under the original Constitution, most of them accept this core power; the debate is what additional powers, if any, the President has (e.g., <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3406350">here</a> and <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3472108">here</a>).</p> <p>(2) The Attorney General is the principal officer through which the President exercises the executive power of law enforcement.  He is, as Jefferson said of the Secretary of State, like a pen in the hand of the President &#8212; an extension of the President&#8217;s will, a tool with which the President exercises his power.  In turn, the Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice, whose employees are subordinates and extensions of his will.</p> <p>(3)  Federal courts have authority over sentencing, and are part of an independent branch of government over which the President has no authority or control (and whose life-tenured appointments assure that independence).</p> <p>(4) Separate from the power of law enforcement, the President has the express power to pardon federal offenses (including the power to commute sentences).</p> <p>It follows from this:</p> <p>(a) The President can say anything he wants to about sentencing recommendations, formally or informally.  Judges may take it into account, or not.</p> <p>(b) The President can direct the Attorney General to make sentencing recommendations the President thinks are appropriate.  The Attorney General must comply (or resign).  Or the President can make just a suggestion, which the Attorney General might (but probably won&#8217;t) ignore.</p> <p>(c) The Attorney General can direct his subordinates to make sentencing recommendations that the Attorney General thinks are appropriate.  The subordinates must comply (or resign).  The Attorney General may generally leave sentencing recommendations to the discretion of his subordinate prosecutors, but that is his decision to make (or not).</p> <p>(d) If the President thinks a sentence is too harsh, he can reduce it through the pardon power (which, though a separate power, reinforces points (a) through (c) above: if the President has ultimate control over federal sentences through the pardon power, the fact that he has power over sentencing recommendations &#8212; which are only recommendations &#8212; does not seem so weighty).</p> <p>These conclusions are not altered if the person being sentenced is a friend (or enemy) of the President.  The structure and powers of the executive are stated generally, without exceptions.</p> <p>Perhaps this is a bad system.  It puts the President in charge of prosecuting his friends (and his enemies) if they violate federal law.  We might be better off with a separately elected independent attorney general (that&#8217;s what we have at the state level in California).  But at the federal level, the Constitution is clear that we don&#8217;t have that system, because it gives the executive power to the President without qualification.  Perhaps Congress could change the federal structure by statute, at least in part, as the Supreme Court held in <em>Morrison v. Olson</em> (though I doubt it, under the Constitution&#8217;s original meaning).  But Congress has not changed the structure as applicable here.</p> <p>I don&#8217;t think these points are materially in dispute as a matter of original meaning or modern law.  But some people in the Stone sentencing kerfuffle seem to have lost sight of them.</p> <p>And as should be clear, these thoughts are addressed only to the constitutionality of actions relating to the Stone episode, not to their prudence.</p> <p><strong>NOTE</strong>: <em>This post was originally published at <a href="http://originalismblog.typepad.com/">The Originalism Blog</a>, “The Blog of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law,” and is reposted here with permission from the author.</em></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Current Events Executive Executive Power Roger Stone Michael D. Ramsey Alabama Tax Repeal Bill Would Help Encourage the Use of Gold and Silver as Money https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/alabama-tax-repeal-bill-would-help-encourage-the-use-of-gold-and-silver-as-money/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d10be155-ba55-d343-f22f-232cf094d0db Fri, 14 Feb 2020 13:40:50 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/alabama-tax-repeal-bill-would-help-encourage-the-use-of-gold-and-silver-as-money/" title="Alabama Tax Repeal Bill Would Help Encourage the Use of Gold and Silver as Money" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_692278882-gold-silver-eagle-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_692278882-gold-silver-eagle-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_692278882-gold-silver-eagle-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_692278882-gold-silver-eagle-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_692278882-gold-silver-eagle-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />MONTGOMERY, Ala. (Feb. 13, 2020) –  A bill introduced in the Alabama House would exempt the sale of gold and silver from state capital gains tax, encouraging its use and taking the first step toward breaking the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money went into effect. Rep. Andrew Sorrell (R-Muscle Shoals) introduced House Bill 122 (HB122) [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/alabama-tax-repeal-bill-would-help-encourage-the-use-of-gold-and-silver-as-money/" title="Alabama Tax Repeal Bill Would Help Encourage the Use of Gold and Silver as Money" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_692278882-gold-silver-eagle-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_692278882-gold-silver-eagle-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_692278882-gold-silver-eagle-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_692278882-gold-silver-eagle-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_692278882-gold-silver-eagle-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>MONTGOMERY</strong>, Ala. (Feb. 13, 2020) –  A bill introduced in the Alabama House would exempt the sale of gold and silver from state capital gains tax, encouraging its use and taking the first step toward breaking the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money went into effect.<span id="more-34205"></span></p> <p>Rep. Andrew Sorrell (R-Muscle Shoals) introduced House Bill 122 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/HB122/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB122</a>) on Feb. 4. The legislation would exclude gains and losses derived from the exchange of precious metal bullion from the calculation of gross income for state income tax purposes. The law defines precious metal bullion as coins, bars, or rounds containing primarily refined gold, silver, or other precious metal that is either marked and valued primarily by its weight, purity, and content.; or is minted by a government authority.</p> <p><strong>IN PRACTICE</strong></p> <p>Last year, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/06/now-in-effect-alabama-law-will-help-encourage-the-use-of-gold-and-silver-as-money/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Alabama repealed the sales tax on the sale of gold and silver</a>. Passage of HB122 would take another step toward treating gold, silver, platinum and palladium as money instead of as commodities. 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 taxes on the sale of gold and silver bullion do. By eliminating capital gains taxes on the exchange of gold and silver, Alabama would take another step toward treating 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 HB122 would 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 gold and silver 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>If sound money gains a foothold in the marketplace against Federal Reserve notes, the people will be able to choose the time-tested stability of gold and silver over the central bank’s rapidly-depreciating paper currency.</p> <p>Constitutional tender expert Professor William Greene wrote that 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 noreferrer">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> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB122 was referred to the <a href="http://www.legislature.state.al.us/aliswww/ISD/HseCommittee.aspx?OID_ORGANIZATION=2338&amp;COMMITTEE=Ways%20and%20Means%20Education">Ways and Means Education Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Federal Reserve Alabama Gold HB122 Silver Sound Money Mike Maharrey Want to Understand the Constitution? Don’t Ask a Lawyer! https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/14/want-to-understand-the-constitution-dont-ask-a-lawyer/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:a6dae5ff-370d-aa26-f471-fa3c762a7b96 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:15:34 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/14/want-to-understand-the-constitution-dont-ask-a-lawyer/" title="Want to Understand the Constitution? Don&#8217;t Ask a Lawyer!" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Most Americans say the Constitution is important. Most Americans say it’s crucial for the government to stay within its constitutional bounds. But what exactly are the constitutional limits on federal power? How do we know? Well, whatever you do, don’t ask a lawyer. Most of them know very little about the Constitution. I can already [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/14/want-to-understand-the-constitution-dont-ask-a-lawyer/" title="Want to Understand the Constitution? Don&#8217;t Ask a Lawyer!" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Most Americans say the Constitution is important. Most Americans say it’s crucial for the government to stay within its constitutional bounds. But what exactly are the constitutional limits on federal power? How do we know?</p> <p>Well, whatever you do, don’t ask a lawyer. Most of them know very little about the Constitution.<span id="more-24577"></span></p> <p>I can already hear you protesting. Lawyers know a lot about the Constitution. They learn constitutional law, for goodness sake!</p> <p>But read closely what I wrote. I didn’t say they don’t know a lot about constitutional law. I said they typically don’t know a lot about the Constitution. There’s a huge difference.</p> <p>Constitutional law is made up of a bunch of lawyers’ opinions about what the Constitution means. But that’s not how you understand the actual meaning of the Constitution.</p> <p>I’ve been told that law students prepping for the Bar Exam are told that if the Tenth Amendment is ever among the answers on a multiple-choice question, they can immediately rule it out.</p> <p>The Tenth Amendment is never the right answer.</p> <p>Thomas Jefferson had a little different view of the Tenth Amendment. He called it the “foundation of the Constitution.”</p> <blockquote><p><em>I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”</em></p></blockquote> <p>The Tenth Amendment makes it unquestioningly clear that the Constitution constrains the general government to very specific and very limited powers. As James Madison explained in <em>Federalist #45</em>, “The powers delegated to the federal government by the proposed Constitution are <strong><em>few</em></strong> and <strong><em>defined</em></strong>.”</p> <p>That’s the dirty little secret politicians don’t want you to know.</p> <p>Now – brace yourself. This might come as a shock. But the people in power are perfectly happy to operate with an undefined, boundless field of power.</p> <p>And that’s why the Tenth Amendment is never the right answer according to the politicians, and the academics, judges, power brokers, lobbyists and talking heads that support them.</p> <p>Before the ink was even dry on the Constitution, the political class was already “interpreting” the document to expand its own powers. Today, that federal government controls nearly every aspect of your life. It runs your healthcare, educates your children and monitors your every move. Bureaucrats in Washington D.C. even tell you what kind of light bulbs you can screw into your fixtures and how much water you can flush down your toilets.</p> <p>So much for powers “few and defined.”</p> <p>Sadly, most Americans accept this state of affairs. They even embrace it. In fact, most Americans actually believe that the federal government legitimately exercises all of this authority. After all, they’ve been taught all their lives that the Tenth Amendment is the wrong answer.</p> <p>The nature of the American political system exacerbates the expansion of power. “Democracy” gives everybody the false sense that they have some hand in exercising power – or that they will at least benefit from its expansion. This creates a dilemma, as political economist Bertrand de Jouvenel explained.</p> <blockquote><p><em>Under the ‘ancient regime,’ society’s moving spirits, who had, as they knew, no chance of a share in Power, were quick to denounce its smallest encroachment. Now, on the other hand, when everyone is potentially a minister, no one is concerned to cut down an office to which he aspires one day himself, or to put sand in a machine which he means to use himself when his turn comes. Hence, it is that there is in the political circles of a modern society a wide complicity in the extension of Power.”</em></p></blockquote> <p>A written constitution was meant to lay down rules that check the tendency for government to grow. It erects barriers to government power that must not be crossed. As Jefferson put it, “in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”</p> <p>But like most things, a constitution won’t work if you don’t know how to use it.</p> <p>Don’t ask a lawyer. Read this instruction manual!<a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/?attachment_id=29058" rel="attachment wp-att-29058"><img class="size-medium wp-image-29058 alignright" src="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CONSTITUTION_OM_FINAL-198x300.jpg" alt="" width="198" height="300" /></a></p> <p>After all, the Constitution belongs to you. And it belongs to me. It doesn’t belong to the government and its functionaries. It belongs to “we the people.”</p> <p>But for far too long politicians, bureaucrats, judges, law professors, and chattering pundits have told us how the Constitution should work. The political class has “interpreted” the rules. And it’s interpreted them to give it more and more power over you and me.</p> <p>After 231 years of interpretation, we now have a federal government that claims the authority to do virtually anything and everything. It has taken possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. Along the way, our liberties have been whittled away. The power of the politicians grows at the expense of our liberties.</p> <p>If we want to reclaim our liberties, something has got to give. It’s time for dis-interpretation. It’s time for “we the people” to reclaim the Constitution.  That’s what this book is all about. This is our instruction manual. We’re going look at the Constitution through the eyes of the generation who wrote and ratified it. We’re going to follow Jefferson’s admonition and “carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”</p> <p>This is the real Constitution that the politicians don’t want you to know about.</p> <p><em>This article was adapted from the introduction of my new book Constitution – Owner’s Manual: The Real Constitution the Politicians Don’t Want You to Know About. Available in paperback or Kindle editions. For ordering information, visit <a href="https://www.michaelmaharrey.com/books-by-michael/constitution-owners-manual/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ConstitutionOwnersManual.com</a>.</em></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Constitution Founding Principles Lawyers tenth-amendment Mike Maharrey Arizona Committee Passes Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeiture https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/arizona-committee-passes-bill-to-end-civil-asset-forfeiture/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:79aa1f03-2641-1846-d62b-daa8bb480aab Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:50:35 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/arizona-committee-passes-bill-to-end-civil-asset-forfeiture/" title="Arizona Committee Passes Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeiture" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-arizona-021320.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-arizona-021320.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-arizona-021320-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-arizona-021320-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-arizona-021320-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />PHOENIX, Ariz. (Feb. 13, 2020) – Today, an Arizona Senate committee unanimously passed a bill that would reform the state’s asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking a person’s property without a criminal conviction in most situations. The proposed legislation would build on important reforms signed into law in 2017. Sen. Eddie Farnsworth [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/arizona-committee-passes-bill-to-end-civil-asset-forfeiture/" title="Arizona Committee Passes Bill to End Civil Asset Forfeiture" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-arizona-021320.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-arizona-021320.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-arizona-021320-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-arizona-021320-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/forfeiture-state-arizona-021320-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>PHOENIX</strong>, Ariz. (Feb. 13, 2020) – Today, an Arizona Senate committee unanimously passed a bill that would reform the state’s asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking a person’s property without a criminal conviction in most situations. The proposed legislation would build on important reforms signed into law in 2017.<span id="more-34220"></span></p> <p>Sen. Eddie Farnsworth (R-Mesa) introduced Senate Bill 1556 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/SB1556/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB1556</a>) on Feb. 4. The legislation would reform the state&#8217;s asset forfeiture laws to require a conviction before the prosecutors could begin forfeiture proceedings in most cases. The bill also includes provisions that would increase protections for property owners involved in the forfeiture process..</p> <p>The Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB1556 with some technical amendments <a href="https://legiscan.com/AZ/rollcall/SB1556/id/922367" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">by a 7-0 vote</a>.</p> <p>An <a href="http://azcir.org/news/2017/01/10/arizona-asset-rico-seizures-net-200m-in-past-five-years/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">AZCIR</a> analysis in 2017 found that Arizona agencies seized nearly $200 million in property between 2011 and 2015 from people who may never have been charged or convicted of a crime.</p> <p>In 2017, Gov. Doug Ducey <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/now-in-effect-new-arizona-law-takes-on-state-federal-asset-forfeiture/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">signed a bill into law</a> that enacted modest reforms to the state’s forfeiture laws and closed a loophole that enabled prosecutors to circumvent state laws by passing cases off to the feds. SB1556 would build on the foundation set in that law and further reform the state’s asset forfeiture process.</p> <p>In 2017, the legislature increased the evidentiary standard necessary for the state to win a forfeiture case. It also took a big step toward closing a loophole that allows state and local police to get around more strict state 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/">policy directive issued in July 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> for the Department of Justice (DOJ).</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/federal-asset-forfeiture-program-helps-local-police-steal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Equitable Sharing</a>” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.</p> <p>Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state closed the loophole</a> in 2016.</p> <p>According to an <a href="http://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-Arizona/">Institute for Justice report</a>, Arizona has been one of the worst offenders of this program:</p> <blockquote><p><em>Arizona law enforcement’s use of the Department of Justice’s equitable sharing program results in a ranking of 32<sup>nd</sup> nationally. In calendar years 2000 to 2013, Arizona law enforcement agencies received nearly $70 million in DOJ equitable sharing proceeds, averaging just under $5 million per year.</em></p></blockquote> <p>The 2017 reforms effectively closed this loophole. The law reads in part:</p> <blockquote><p>The seizing agency or the attorney for the state may not enter into any agreement to transfer or refer seized property to a federal agency for the purpose of forfeiture if the property was seized pursuant to an investigation that either:</p> <p>1.  Did not involve a federal agency.</p> <p>2.  Involves a violation of a state law and no violation of a federal law is alleged.</p> <p>Property that is seized in a joint investigation may not be transferred or referred to a federal agency for the purpose of forfeiture unless the gross estimated value of the seized property is more than seventy‑five thousand dollars.</p></blockquote> <p>Reporting in some areas has revealed that 85 percent of seizures received by law enforcement agencies through the federal equitable sharing program did not meet a $50,000 threshold. Supporters view the law’s higher requirement as significant.</p> <p>“While we’d like to see Arizona and every other state completely opt-out of this federal program, an 80-85 percent reduction in seizures through this federal scheme is a huge step forward to nullify it in practice and effect,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said.</p> <p>Requiring a criminal conviction is the next logical step. With the federal loophole closed, the passage of SB1556 would make it virtually impossible for police to take a person’s assets without first establishing their guilt.</p> <p><strong>OPPOSITION</strong></p> <p>SB1556 will likely face stiff opposition from law enforcement lobbyists as it continues through the legislative process. This was the case for the more modest reforms. Activists obtained letters sent to representatives from at least three police departments opposing the 2017 bill. (<a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/339535680/Law-Enforcement-Letters-Opposing-Asset-Forfeiture-Reform-in-Arizona">click here to read the documents</a>)</p> <p>Grassroots activists in the state, including Arizona Tenth Amendment Center volunteers Joel Alcott and Michael Gibbs, put in long hours opposing law enforcement lobbying efforts and nursing the 2017 reforms through the process. Boldin called the grassroots efforts “a difference-maker.”</p> <blockquote><p>“The law enforcement lobby in Arizona is extremely powerful. I believe the volunteers and activists on the ground in Arizona were the difference between this billing passing and failing. There were a couple of times it looked dead. I can’t praise them enough for what they pulled off. It goes to show just how effective grassroots activism is at the state level.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT<br /> </strong></p> <p>SB1556 will now move to the Senate Rules Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Asset Forfeiture State Bills Arizona Equitable Sharing Policing for Profit SB1556 Mike Maharrey New Hampshire Committee Passes Bill to Ban Facial Recognition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-hampshire-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-facial-recognition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:6663a9e5-d394-15d6-c6e2-d40fc8ced5e6 Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:07:41 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-hampshire-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-facial-recognition/" title="New Hampshire Committee Passes Bill to Ban Facial Recognition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />CONCORD, N.H. (Feb. 13, 2020) &#8211; Today, a New Hampshire House committee approved a bill to ban government use of facial recognition surveillance technologies. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in New Hampshire; it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state. A bipartisan coalition of four Republicans, three Democrats [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/new-hampshire-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-facial-recognition/" title="New Hampshire Committee Passes Bill to Ban Facial Recognition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/02/facial-recognition-state-new-hampshire-021320-1-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>CONCORD</strong>, N.H. (Feb. 13, 2020) &#8211; Today, a New Hampshire House committee approved a bill to ban government use of facial recognition surveillance technologies. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in New Hampshire; it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-34218"></span></p> <p>A bipartisan coalition of four Republicans, three Democrats and one Libertarian introduced House Bill 1642 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB1642/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB1648</a>) on Jan. 8. The legislation would ban the state and its political subdivisions from using facial recognition and would make any such information obtained in violation of the act inadmissible in court. It reads, in part:</p> <p>&#8220;Neither the state nor any state official shall obtain, retain, access, or use any face surveillance system or any information obtained from a face surveillance system.&#8221;</p> <p>Under the proposed law, even requests for facial recognition data from &#8220;an out-of-state face recognition system&#8221; would be prohibited.</p> <p>Today, the House Executive Departments and Administration Committee advanced the measure with a vote of 18-2.</p> <p>This legislation is part of a broader nationwide movement to limit this invasive surveillance technology at the local and state level. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/first-in-the-nation-san-francisco-passes-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">San Francisco</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/oakland-city-council-unanimously-approves-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oakland</a>, and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/four-and-counting-berkeley-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Berkeley</a>, California have all prohibited government use of facial recognition technology, along with  <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/second-in-the-nation-somerville-city-council-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Somerville</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/three-and-counting-northampton-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Northhampton</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/seven-and-counting-cambridge-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cambridge</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/brookline-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brookline</a>, Massachusetts.  <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/portland-oregon-considering-facial-recognition-technology-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Portland, Oregon</a> is considering a similar ban. The California governor recently <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/signed-as-law-california-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">signed a bill</a> that imposes a 3-year ban on the use of the tech in conjunction with police body-worn cameras, leading to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/san-diego-shuts-down-massive-facial-recognition-system-to-comply-with-new-california-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the shutdown of one of the biggest facial recognition programs in the country</a>.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>A <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recent report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/31/local-state-and-federal-law-enforcement-partnering-to-create-massive-facial-recognition-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a massive, nationwide facial recognition system</a> for years.</p> <p>The FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.</p> <p>In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at <a href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">perpetuallineup.org</a>. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.</p> <blockquote><p>“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/study-lack-of-face-recognition-oversight-threatens-privacy-of-millions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clare Garvie said</a>. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”</p></blockquote> <p>There are <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">many technical and legal problems</a> with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8wa8/amazons-facial-recognition-misidentified-1-in-5-california-lawmakers-as-criminals" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature</a> as people in a database of arrest photos.</p> <p>With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.</p> <p>In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras</a> equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of state laws and local ordinances banning 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>HB1642 will now move to the full House for further debate and consideration. It will need to pass by a majority vote before the Senate can consider it.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Facial Recognition State Bills Surveillance facial recognition HB1642 New Hampshire surveillance Michael Boldin Missouri Bill Would Set Foundation to End Enforcement of Some Federal Rules and Regulations https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/missouri-bill-would-set-foundation-to-end-enforcement-of-some-federal-rules-and-regulations/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:408dfdc2-85f1-1e7d-267c-193784e82e2d Thu, 13 Feb 2020 14:10:44 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/missouri-bill-would-set-foundation-to-end-enforcement-of-some-federal-rules-and-regulations/" title="Missouri Bill Would Set Foundation to End Enforcement of Some Federal Rules and Regulations" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-768x402.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-1024x536.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-191x100.png 191w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-50x26.png 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-75x39.png 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Feb. 13, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Missouri House would set the stage to end enforcement of some rules and regulations issued by federal agencies, nullifying them in effect in the state. Rep. Mike Moon (R- Ash Grove) introduced House Bill 2339 (HB2339) on Jan. 30. The legislation would prohibit [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/missouri-bill-would-set-foundation-to-end-enforcement-of-some-federal-rules-and-regulations/" title="Missouri Bill Would Set Foundation to End Enforcement of Some Federal Rules and Regulations" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-768x402.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-1024x536.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-191x100.png 191w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-50x26.png 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-75x39.png 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/02/bigstock-Fist-Painted-In-Colors-Of-Us-S-29676311-missouri-1200-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (Feb. 13, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Missouri House would set the stage to end enforcement of some rules and regulations issued by federal agencies, nullifying them in effect in the state.<span id="more-34200"></span></p> <p>Rep. Mike Moon (R- Ash Grove) introduced House Bill 2339 (<a href="https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB2339&amp;year=2020&amp;code=R" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB2339</a>) on Jan. 30. The legislation would prohibit all state departments and agencies from<br /> enforcing any rule or regulation promulgated by a federal agency until the rule has first been approved by the Missouri General Assembly. The bill also creates a process for reviewing all current federal agency rules and regulations.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Any existing rule or regulation promulgated before August 28, 2020, by any department or agency of this state in conjunction with the enforcement of any rule or regulation promulgated by any federal agency that is in force and effect after August 28, 2020, shall be subject to review by the committee on administrative rules, established under section 536.037. The committee shall determine whether such rule or regulation shall continue to be enforced and shall make a recommendation thereof to the general assembly. The general assembly shall review all rules and regulations referred to it by the committee and shall approve or disapprove the continued enforcement of such rules or regulations.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Practically speaking, under the proposed law, state agencies would no longer take action to implement or enforce federal agency rules or regulations by default. It would require an act of the legislature before the state cooperated with rules issued by agencies like the EPA, FDA and ATF. The state would not attempt to block the rules or regulations, but would simply refuse to take any action to implement or enforce them at the state level until the legislature gives approval. This would set the stage to nullify such federal actions in effect.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>Based on James Madison’s <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/07/the-blueprint-james-madisons-advice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed this type of approach would be extremely effective. In a televised discussion on federal gun laws, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>State refusal to enforce or implement certain federal acts rests on a well-established legal principle known as <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the anti-commandeering doctrine</a>. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>Missouri <a href="https://house.mo.gov/MemberDetails.aspx?year=2020&amp;code=R&amp;district=134" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Speaker of the House Elijah Haahr</a> (R-Springfield) first needs to assign HB2339 to a committee. From there, it will need to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Federal Review State Bills anti-commandeering HB2339 Missouri Mike Maharrey Mississippi Bills Would Remove Barrier to Use of Gold and Silver as Money https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/mississippi-bills-would-remove-barrier-to-use-of-gold-and-silver-as-money/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:00a267ef-5334-c194-7329-7f0dacaf6ac6 Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:51:03 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/mississippi-bills-would-remove-barrier-to-use-of-gold-and-silver-as-money/" title="Mississippi Bills Would Remove Barrier to Use of Gold and Silver as Money" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />JACKSON, Miss. (Feb 13, 2020) – Two bills introduced in the Mississippi House would exempt gold and silver bullion from the state sales tax. Enactment of this legislation would 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. Rep. Henry [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/mississippi-bills-would-remove-barrier-to-use-of-gold-and-silver-as-money/" title="Mississippi Bills Would Remove Barrier to Use of Gold and Silver as Money" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/gold-state-general-022119-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>JACKSON</strong>, Miss. (Feb 13, 2020) – Two bills introduced in the Mississippi House would exempt gold and silver bullion from the state sales tax. Enactment of this legislation would 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-34209"></span><br /> Rep. Henry Zuber (R-Ocean Springs) introduced House Bill 615 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MS/bill/HB615/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB615</a>) and House Bill 616 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MS/bill/HB616/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB616</a>) on Feb. 6. The language in the two bills is slightly different but both would have the same practical effect &#8211; the repeal of the state sales tax on the sale of gold, silver, platinum or palladium bullion.</p> <p>HB615 defines bullion as &#8220;bars, ingots, or commemorative medallions of gold, silver, platinum, palladium, or a combination of these materials for which the value of the metal depends on its content and not its form.&#8221; HB616 takes a slightly different approach, stipulating that to qualify for the exemption, bullion must &#8220;be refined and contain at least ninety percent (90%) gold, silver, platinum, or palladium or some combination of these metals, and the sales price of the item must fluctuate with and depend on the market price of the underlying precious metal, and not on the item&#8217;s rarity, condition, age, or other external facto.&#8221;</p> <p>Sen. Joey Fillingane (R-Sumrall) <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/mississippi-bill-would-remove-barrier-to-use-of-gold-and-silver-as-money/">introduced a similar bill in the Senate last month</a>.</p> <p><strong>IN PRACTICE</strong></p> <p>With the passage of any of these bills, Mississippi could take a step toward treating gold, silver, platinum and palladium as money instead of commodities. 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 would 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>If sound money gains a foothold in the marketplace against Federal Reserve notes, the people will be able to choose the time-tested stability of gold and silver over the central bank’s rapidly-depreciating paper currency.</p> <p>Constitutional tender expert Professor William Greene wrote that 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 noreferrer">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> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB615 and HB616 were both referred to the House Ways and Means Committee where they must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Federal Reserve State Bills Constitutional Tender Gold HB615 HB616 Mississippi Silver Sound Money Mike Maharrey Virginia House Passes Bill Legalizing CBD Despite Ongoing FDA Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/virginia-house-passes-bill-legalizing-cbd-despite-ongoing-fda-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f55963ef-cd16-483d-b48f-15108c3f826b Wed, 12 Feb 2020 22:56:14 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/virginia-house-passes-bill-legalizing-cbd-despite-ongoing-fda-prohibition/" title="Virginia House Passes Bill Legalizing CBD Despite Ongoing FDA Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-300x169.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-178x100.jpg 178w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-50x28.jpg 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-75x42.jpg 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />RICHMOND, Va. (Feb. 12, 2020) – Last week, the Virginia House passed a bill that would create a regulatory program for the manufacture of hemp extract and CBD products for human consumption and would ensure continued availability of CBD products in the state. This would not only open up markets in Virginia; it would also [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/02/virginia-house-passes-bill-legalizing-cbd-despite-ongoing-fda-prohibition/" title="Virginia House Passes Bill Legalizing CBD Despite Ongoing FDA Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-300x169.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-178x100.jpg 178w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-50x28.jpg 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-75x42.jpg 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/07/video-thumbnail-cbd-permission-not-needed-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><b>RICHMOND, </b>Va. (Feb. 12, 2020) – Last week, the Virginia House passed a bill that would create a regulatory program for the manufacture of hemp extract and CBD products for human consumption and would ensure continued availability of CBD products in the state. This would not only open up markets in Virginia; it would also take a crucial step given the FDA’s continued regulation and prohibition of cannabinoid.<span id="more-34204"></span></p> <p>Del. Wendy Gooditis (D-Boyce) introduced House Bill 1430 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/HB1430/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB1430</a>) on Jan. 8. Under the proposed law, industrial hemp extract would be legally classified as a food and would be subject to regulatory requirements established by the bill.</p> <p>On Feb. 4, the House passed HB1430 <a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/rollcall/HB1430/id/914647" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">by a 95-4 vote</a>.</p> <p>Currently, Virginia law does not specifically address hemp-derived CBD as a food additive, although products containing cannabidiol are available throughout the state. Final passage of HB1430 would ensure that the state would continue to allow the sale of CBD and CBD products. This is crucial because despite removing the plant from the list of controlled substances late last year, the federal government still prohibits the sale of CBD products under FDA rules.</p> <p>HB1430 does not have specific rules about how CBD can be used in food and beverages, but gives broad rule-making authority to state agencies.</p> <p><strong>2018 Farm Bill and CBD</strong></p> <p>With the passage of the farm bill, the federal government now treats industrial hemp as an agricultural commodity instead of a controlled substance. While the DEA will no longer have the authority to regulate hemp, the provisions of the farm bill have no bearing on FDA rules and regulations regarding CBD. In fact, a section in the farm bill makes this explicit.</p> <blockquote><p>Section 297D, paragraph (c)(1) “Regulations and Guidelines; Effect on Other Law” states “nothing in this subtitle shall affect or modify the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”</p></blockquote> <p>Practically speaking, the passage of the farm bill does not mean CBD is now federally-legal in all 50 states, as some hemp supporters claim. In fact, the FDA still maintains a strict prohibition on the sale of CBD in the U.S.</p> <p>To date, the FDA has only approved one medication with cannabidiol as an active ingredient – <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm611046.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Epidiolex</a> for the treatment of seizures. But the FDA classifies CBD as “a drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted.” Under federal law, that designation means the FDA maintains full control over the substance and it cannot be marketed as a “dietary supplement.” The<a href="https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm421168.htm#legal" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> agency maintains</a> that the sale of CBD or any food products containing the substance is illegal.</p> <p>To date, the agency hasn’t changed its position on CBD. In a recent congressional hearing, <a href="https://www.naturalblaze.com/2019/03/fda-head-reveals-new-details-about-agencys-cbd-regulation-plans.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said</a> he understands that Congress wants a pathway to CBD availability, but said “it is not a straightforward issue” due to the fact that the agency has approved CBD for treatment of epilepsy and it is ““subject of substantial clinical investigation.” Both of these factors prohibit CBD from being sold as a “health supplement” and from being added to food.</p> <p>Gottlieb said, “the law does allow us to go through a regulatory process and go through a notice and comment rulemaking to establish a framework to allow it to be put into the food supply.”</p> <p>The FDA <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/13/questions-remain-after-fda-hearing-will-the-feds-release-their-grip-on-cbd/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">held its first public meeting relating to CBD</a> last May. FDA principal deputy commissioner <a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/key-takeaways-from-fdas-historic-cbd-regulations-meeting/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Amy Abernethy said</a> there is a need to “further clarify the regulatory framework to reduce confusion in the market,” and “Key questions about product safety need to be addressed. Data are needed to determine safety thresholds for CBD.”</p> <p>In effect, the agency can continue to enforce these same rules even with the passage of the 2018 farm bill. While farmers can now legally grow hemp for commercial purposes, including the production of fiber, biofuel, building products, paper, clothes and even food products that don’t contain CBD, the sale of cannabinol or food products containing CBD remain federally-illegal, as it has been all along, unless the FDA changes its policy or Congress passes legislation specifically legalizing CBD.</p> <p>Enactment of HB1430 would open the door to the production and sale of CBD products produced in the state regardless of continued federal prohibition.</p> <p>Without state cooperation, the FDA will likely have trouble regulating it in Virginia.</p> <p>Despite past and ongoing federal prohibition,<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/30/cbd-is-illegal-everywhere/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> CBD is everywhere</a>. A <i>New York Times</i> article asserted that “with CBD popping up in nearly everything — bath bombs, ice cream, dog treats — it is hard to overstate the speed at which CBD has moved from the Burning Man margins to the cultural center.”</p> <p>This was happening when both the DEA and FDA prohibited CBD. It will undoubtedly continue as long as market demand remains and states don’t interfere. The FDA can’t effectively enforce prohibition without the assistance of state and local officials.</p> <p><a href="https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm421168.htm#legal" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According to the FDA</a>, the agency prioritizes enforcement based on a number of factors, including “agency resources and the threat to public health. FDA also may consult with its federal and <b>state partners</b> in making decisions about whether to initiate a federal enforcement action.”</p> <p>Even with both the FDA and DEA theoretically enforcing federal laws and regulations banning CBD, state and local action have already nullified federal prohibition in practice and effect. There’s no reason to think that won’t continue as long as states maintain the same stance on CBD as they did under the 2014 farm bill. Simply put, the federal government lacks the personnel and resources to crack down on CBD – even if the FDA wants to.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB1430 will move to the Senate for further consideration. At the time of this report, it had not been referred to a Senate 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-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> CBD State Bills FDA HB1430 Industrial Hemp Virginia Mike Maharrey