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/ Four and Counting: Berkeley Passes Facial Recognition Ban https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/four-and-counting-berkeley-passes-facial-recognition-ban/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3207f0de-4160-1d6d-05a6-6fc978460d52 Wed, 16 Oct 2019 17:13:04 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/four-and-counting-berkeley-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" title="Four and Counting: Berkeley Passes Facial Recognition Ban" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-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/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>BERKELEY, Calif. (Oct. 16. 2019) &#8211; Yesterday, the Berkeley City Council unanimously passed a ban on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the city. It is the 4th local government in the country to do so this year. The amendment to the city&#8217;s surveillance policy prohibits the government agencies from acquiring, retaining, requesting, [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/four-and-counting-berkeley-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" title="Four and Counting: Berkeley Passes Facial Recognition Ban" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-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/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/facial-recognition-oct-2019-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p><strong>BERKELEY</strong>, Calif. (Oct. 16. 2019) &#8211; Yesterday, the Berkeley City Council unanimously passed a ban on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the city. It is the 4th local government in the country to do so this year.<span id="more-33646"></span></p> <p>The <a href="///Users/michaelmaharrey/Downloads/2019-10-15%20Item%2024%20Adopt%20an%20Ordinance%20Amending%20Berkeley.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amendment to the city&#8217;s surveillance policy</a> prohibits the government agencies from acquiring, retaining, requesting, accessing, or using: (1) any face recognition technology, or (2) any information obtained from face recognition technology.</p> <p>Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer <a href="https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2019-10-16-berkley-ca-becomes-fourth-us-city-to-ban-facial/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">called</a> the proliferation of facial recognition &#8220;a human rights crisis.&#8221;</p> <blockquote> <p style="text-align: left;">“But we still have a chance to draw a line in the sand. The local advocates and lawmakers in Berkeley who passed this ban are showing us the way. Our surveillance nightmares are not inevitable. We’re fighting to ban government use of facial recognition everywhere.”</p> </blockquote> <p>The amendment does include an exception that allows the police to use &#8220;evidence received relating to the investigation of a specific crime that may have been generated from face recognition technology but was not intentionally solicited.&#8221;</p> <p>This language creates a potential loophole that could allow police to obtain information based on facial recognition through &#8220;wink-wink, nudge-nudge&#8221; agreements where they don&#8217;t directly ask for it. The law requires police to disclose the acquisition of any such information and the community will have to maintain vigilance to ensure that this kind of data sharing doesn&#8217;t happen.</p> <p>Information obtained by activists through open records requests <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">revealed that Berkeley police partnered with the Department of Homeland Security</a> to use cameras equipped with facial recognition to spy on a &#8220;free speech protest&#8221; and Antifa counterdemonstrations.</p> <p>The Berkeley amendment is part of a growing movement to limit or ban the use of facial recognition technology and the local and state level. Berkeley is the fourth city to outright ban the technology. <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/2019/06/second-in-the-nation-somerville-city-council-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Somerville, Mass.</a> have all prohibited government use of facial recognition technology. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/portland-oregon-considering-facial-recognition-technology-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Portland, Oregon, is considering a similar ban</a>, 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. The New York Assembly is considering <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/new-york-assembly-passes-bill-to-ban-facial-recognition-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a bill to ban facial recognition in schools</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>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of local ordinances banning facial recognition eliminates260 one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</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 Local Berkeley California facial recognition Fourth Amendment Privacy surveillance Mike Maharrey Marshall and Madison on Immigration Power https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/16/marshall-and-madison-on-immigration-power/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:22e50e03-aa8d-b5e1-941d-654d4daad5b6 Wed, 16 Oct 2019 12:00:27 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/16/marshall-and-madison-on-immigration-power/" title="Marshall and Madison on Immigration Power" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-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/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>I&#8217;ve now had time to read and think about John Marshall&#8217;s comments on Congress&#8217; power over immigration (or, strictly speaking, the comments in the 1799 report of the minority of the Virginia Legislature, attributed to Marshall), recommended by Kurt Lash in the context of previous posts on the immigration power. To recap, the Federalist-dominated Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts in [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/16/marshall-and-madison-on-immigration-power/" title="Marshall and Madison on Immigration Power" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-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/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/madison-marshall-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>I&#8217;ve now had time to read and think about <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs20.html" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">John Marshall&#8217;s comments</a> on Congress&#8217; power over immigration (or, strictly speaking, the comments in the 1799 report of the minority of the Virginia Legislature, attributed to Marshall), <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2012/05/kurt-lash-comments-on-immigration-powermichael-ramsey.html" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">recommended by Kurt Lash</a> in the context of <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2012/05/is-there-a-power-to-regulate-immigration-some-preliminary-thoughtsmike-rappaport.html" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">previous posts</a> on the immigration power.<span id="more-28814"></span></p> <p>To recap, the Federalist-dominated Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which among other things authorized the removal of aliens the President identified as dangerous to the United States.  The Virginia Legislature passed a resolution objecting to the Acts as beyond Congress&#8217; constitutional power.  In response, Henry Lee submitted &#8220;An Address of the Fifty-Eight Federal Members of the Virginia Legislature,&#8221; dissenting from the Legislature&#8217;s resolutions (thus, defending Congress&#8217; power to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts).  The Address itself did not identify an author, but Professor Lash and others <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=888803" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">argue persuasively</a> that the author was John Marshall.  (In this post, I will assume that is correct).  James Madison then wrote a <a href="http://www.constitution.org/rf/vr_1799.htm" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">response</a> to the Address (and to other arguments against the resolution) which was adopted by the Legislature&#8217;s majority.</p> <p>Two points stand out in my reading.  I&#8217;ll discuss the first in this post.  As Professor Lash indicates, the &#8220;Address&#8221; and Madison&#8217;s response are powerful evidence against the idea of inherent or extraconstitutional immigration powers arising merely from national sovereignty (as suggested, for example, in <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2012/05/correcting-plenary-power-misconceptions-in-arizona-v-united-statesthe-founding-generations-and-feder.html" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">this post by Patrick Charles</a>).  Marshall, defending Congress&#8217; power to pass the Alien Acts, does not even hint at an inherent congressional power.  The Address opens with a theoretical discussion of federalism, arguing that matters of national concern should be left to the national government.  It then says, though, &#8220;it is admitted, that if in the formation of our constitution a different arrangement is made, that arrangement, however inconvenient, must be sacredly obeyed till constitutionally changed.&#8221;  (p. 17).  Marshall continues by observing that &#8220;[t]he government of the United States &#8230; possesses only delegated powers, and it is proper to enquire whether the power now under consideration [that is, the power over aliens] be delegated or not.&#8221;</p> <p>The Address then argues that the power to remove dangerous aliens stems from three specific textual powers: the power to declare war and grant letters of marque and reprisal; the power to punish offenses against the law of nations; and the power to protect the states against invasion. (pp. 18-19).  It also argues (p. 17) that although the power to exclude dangerous aliens isn&#8217;t mentioned expressly in the Constitution, that alone does not foreclose it: the Tenth Amendment, it specifically says, requires powers to be delegated but omits the word &#8220;expressly&#8221; (found in the comparable clause of the Articles of Confederation), thus showing that under the Amendment powers may be delegated implicitly.</p> <p>This presentation, it seems to me, devastates the claim that the founding generation understood Congress to have an inherent power over immigration that arose from national sovereignty outside the Constitution and in spite of the Tenth Amendment.  Marshall, who was defending Congress&#8217; exercise of power over aliens, had every incentive to make that argument if it was at all plausible.  He did not.  Instead, he conceded both that the national government had only delegated powers and that the Tenth Amendment applied to the question of immigration power.  Operating wholly within the framework of delegated powers, he argued that three specific clauses contained the power at issue (that is, the power to remove dangerous aliens) &#8212; although notably his arguments did not expressly claim or implicit add up to a general congressional power over immigration.</p> <p>Madison&#8217;s response to Marshall confirms the general rejection of inherent national powers.  First Madison re-asserts in uncompromising terms (p. 2) the doctrine of delegated powers:</p> <p>in all contemporary discussions and comments which the Constitution underwent, it was constantly justified and recommended, on the ground, that the powers not given to the government, were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the 12th [Tenth] Amendment, now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, &#8220;that the powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.&#8221;</p> <p>Madison notes his opponents&#8217; reliance on &#8220;a late doctrine, which opens another source of federal powers, not less extensive and important, than it is new and unexpected.&#8221;  But this alternative view, which he works hard to refute, is <em>not</em> the idea of inherent powers &#8212; rather, it is Hamilton&#8217;s idea of Congress&#8217; &#8220;general welfare&#8221; power found (supposedly) in Article I, Section 8 but not tied to Congress&#8217; other enumerated powers (a point Marshall did not argue).  Madison&#8217;s response spends no time at all discussing or refuting the idea of inherent national power over immigration, apart from his unqualified restatement of the delegated powers doctrine quoted above.  Instead, in addition to refuting the &#8220;general welfare&#8221; argument, he engages the three specific clauses Marshall listed as sources of Congress&#8217; power and rejects each of them.</p> <p>Madison&#8217;s response is consistent with the natural reading of Marshall&#8217;s Address &#8212; that Marshall accepted the idea of delegated powers both generally and as applied to power over aliens, and that Marshall thought the national power over aliens, if it existed, had to come (implicitly) from a specific textual grant of power to the national government.</p> <p>Of course, one can debate the value of post-ratification evidence to the Constitution&#8217;s original meaning.  My view is that the ratification-era evidence against inherent national powers is so strong that one need not look at post-ratification history at all.  But for those inclined to credit arguments in favor of inherent national power, the Marshall-Madison exchange of 1799 seems hard to explain.  Marshall was a moderate nationalist, defending the exercise of congressional power over aliens &#8212; he had every institutional and rhetorical reason to advance an inherent powers argument if he thought it would have any traction.  Yet he did not make the argument (and Madison did not think the argument worth a detailed response apart from a citation to the Tenth Amendment).  Either Marshall did not think of the argument or he thought it so unpersuasive as to be not worth mentioning (and indeed, he implicitly conceded it by arguing purely in terms of delegated powers and acknowledging the applicability of the Tenth Amendment).  In either event, it seems difficult to escape the conclusion that inherent national power over aliens was <em>not</em> a background assumption of the founding generation, as Marshall and Madison understood it.</p> <p>Of course, that underscores the mystery of how the founding generation actually did think about the power over aliens, which I will consider next.</p> <p><strong>Marshall and Madison on Immigration Power, Part 2</strong></p> <p>I previously noted that neither Marshall nor Madison gave any credence at all to the idea that Congress might have an inherent extraconstitutional authority over aliens as a consequence of national sovereignty.  They both assumed that the structure of delegated powers indicated in the original Constitution and confirmed in the Tenth Amendment applied to power over aliens.  But since the Constitution&#8217;s text doesn&#8217;t mention power over aliens directly, where did they think it could be found?  Some thoughts:</p> <p>1.  Neither Marshall nor Madison suggested that Congress had a single unified power over aliens.  As described previously, Marshall&#8217;s defense of the Alien Acts identified three textual powers that (he said) gave Congress power over supposedly dangerous aliens (the target of the Alien Acts).  Two of Marshall&#8217;s clauses (the war power and the power to punish offenses against the law of nations) clearly did not apply to aliens generally.  The third, the power to protect states against invasion, might be read that way (if one thought of unwelcome immigrants as invaders), but that doesn&#8217;t seem to have been Marshall&#8217;s meaning.  He said that the power allowed removal of <em>dangerous</em> aliens because &#8220;[t]o cause to depart from our territory the individuals of a nation from whom invasion was apprehended, is most obviously a measure of precaution dictated by prudence and warranted by justice.&#8221;  (p.19).  That is, in the particular situation removal was warranted in anticipation of impending nation-to-nation hostilities.  This wouldn&#8217;t amount to a general power over aliens.  Madison, in response, of course denied that Congress had even as much power over aliens as Marshall contended.  His position was essentially that Congress had power only over <em>enemy</em> aliens (that is, citizens of a nation with which the US was at war).</p> <p>2.  Neither Marshall nor Madison discussed the naturalization clause as a possible source of Congress&#8217; power.  That&#8217;s a bit problematic for people who think that clause is the best candidate for a general textual power over immigration.  Notably, David Currie&#8217;s account of the congressional debates over the Alien Acts similarly indicates that the naturalization clause wasn&#8217;t regarded as a likely source of Congress&#8217; power.  (<a href="https://www.amazon.com/The-Constitution-Congress-Federalist-1789-1801/dp/0226131157/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1337730513&amp;sr=1-1" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Constitution in Congress: The Federalist Period</a>, pp. 258-259).  I wouldn&#8217;t say that that completely settles it.  The naturalization clause still looks good: under the 1790 Naturalization Act, eligibility for naturalization turned principally on how long an alien had lived in the United States.  (The first of the 1798 Alien Acts added more requirements, but time in the US remained a central qualification).  Thus one obvious way for Congress to exercise control over naturalization was to control who could come into and remain in the US.  Further, the naturalization clause gives power to &#8220;establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,&#8221; and any rule that turned on time spent in the country wouldn&#8217;t be entirely &#8220;uniform&#8221; if states had different rules on admitting and removing aliens.  That might be enough to make Congress&#8217; control over aliens&#8217; entrance and residency necessary and proper to the naturalization power.  But apparently it didn&#8217;t seem a worthwhile argument in 1798-99 &#8212; naturalization clause proponents need some explanation, or some more weighty evidence in their favor, I&#8217;d say.</p> <p>3.  Marshall and Madison both thought the states had some power over aliens.  Both referred to Virginia&#8217;s 1792 statute on dangerous aliens.  Marshall pointed out (p. 21) that:</p> <p>Our [i.e., Virginia&#8217;s] laws expressly authorize the executive to apprehend and secure or compel to depart this commonwealth, all suspicious persons being the subject of any foreign power or state, from whom the President of the United States shall apprehend hostile designs against the said states.</p> <p>No one, Marshall said, thought the Virginia law was unconstitutional.  Madison agreed (p. 11), but distinguished the Virginia law as applying to aliens with &#8220;hostile designs&#8221; while &#8220;the act of Congress relates to aliens, being the subjects of foreign powers and states, who have neither declared war, nor commenced hostilities, nor from whom hostile designs are apprehended.&#8221;  (Madison&#8217;s distinction was actually pretty weak, as there did not appear to be a great deal of difference between the Virginia statute and the Alien Act; Madison seemed to be implying that a broader statute at the state level might be unconstitutional, but he didn&#8217;t say why, and it obviously wasn&#8217;t because he thought the power was reserved to Congress.)  Madison did elsewhere seem to affirm that the power over aliens was (or could be) a residual power of the states (p. 11, responding to the Federalist argument that if Congress couldn&#8217;t regulate aliens no one could, which would be absurd).</p> <p>Further, Marshall in particular seemed to understand Article I, Section 9 (the migration clause) to imply a state power to refuse admission to aliens.  That clause provides:</p> <p>The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight.</p> <p>One of the arguments against the Alien Acts was that they violated the migration clause by prohibiting migration prior to 1808.  But, Marshall said, pointing to the Virginia statute, the aliens in question were not ones Virginia had &#8220;thought proper to admit,&#8221; since they were removable under state law as well as under federal law: &#8220;No law of this state authorizes the migration in to it of persons of the description comprehended in the act of the United States. &#8230; [T]he state of Virginia does not admit, but excludes from her territory all those who are contemplated by the alien law.&#8221;  (He also argued that Section 9&#8217;s general prohibition on laws against migration didn&#8217;t apply to specific laws responding to national security threats).  Marshall&#8217;s account of the migration clause assumes that states have the constitutional power to &#8220;choose to admit,&#8221; or to not admit, aliens generally (which seems consistent with the clause&#8217;s text).</p> <p>4.  Finally, it&#8217;s interesting that the 1792 Virginia law specifically refers to a determination of dangerousness <em>by the US President</em>.  Congress&#8217; Act also delegated almost complete discretion to the President: &#8220;[I]t shall be lawful for the President of the United States at any time during the continuance of this act, to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States &#8230; to depart out of the territory of the United States.&#8221; There are surely hints here that the President has a special role in dealing with aliens, but neither Marshall nor Madison develops the idea in the arguments.</p> <p>Of course, this exchange as a whole was about the removal of aliens rather than the initial decision to admit them; at best it&#8217;s reflective of thinking among legislators in Virginia, and in any event it took place a decade after the Constitution&#8217;s ratification.  And it&#8217;s somewhat inconclusive, in that neither author attempts a comprehensive theory of the power over aliens.  But with these qualifications, it seems to offer support for two additional conclusions (beyond the rejection of inherent power): Congress might not have a comprehensive power over aliens, and the states seemed to have some, though perhaps not unlimited, power to remove or refuse to admit aliens.  In other words, it&#8217;s consistent with the tentative thoughts Mike Rappaport outlined <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2012/05/is-there-a-power-to-regulate-immigration-some-preliminary-thoughtsmike-rappaport.html" target="_self" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>.</p> <p><strong>EDITOR&#8217;S NOTE:</strong> <em>This article was originally published as two blog posts (<a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2012/05/marshall-on-the-immigration-power-part-1michael-ramsey.html">here</a> and <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2012/05/marshall-and-madison-on-immigration-power-part-2michael-ramsey.html">here</a>) 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> Constitution Immigration and Naturalization Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions 1799 Report of the Minority alien and sedition acts immigration James Madison John Marshall Report of 1799 Virginia Resolutions Michael D. Ramsey Proposed Federal Vaping Ban Is Bigger Than Vaping https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/proposed-federal-vaping-ban-is-bigger-than-vaping/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:676455fa-ca77-ca0a-ec25-696c3d1e6865 Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:32:45 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/proposed-federal-vaping-ban-is-bigger-than-vaping/" title="Proposed Federal Vaping Ban Is Bigger Than Vaping" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/hhs-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/2019/10/hhs-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/hhs-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/hhs-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/hhs-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/hhs-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/hhs-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/hhs-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>The Trump administration is aggressively pushing an unconstitutional ban on all flavored vape products after reports that over 1,000 people have become ill and roughly two-dozen people have died, supposedly from &#8220;vaping.&#8221; Vaping has been called an &#8220;epidemic&#8221; even though vaping has been around for over 10 years with no prior reports of anything like [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/proposed-federal-vaping-ban-is-bigger-than-vaping/" title="Proposed Federal Vaping Ban Is Bigger Than Vaping" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/hhs-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/2019/10/hhs-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/hhs-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/hhs-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/hhs-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/hhs-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/hhs-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/hhs-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>The Trump administration is aggressively pushing an unconstitutional ban on all flavored vape products after reports that over 1,000 people have become ill and roughly two-dozen people have died, supposedly from &#8220;vaping.&#8221; <span id="more-33609"></span></p> <p>Vaping has been called an &#8220;epidemic&#8221; even though vaping has been around for over 10 years with no prior reports of anything like this ever happening. In contrast, if we examine the number of lung cancer deaths from smoking cigarettes between 2005 and 2010 we see that over 130,000 people have died from this life choice.</p> <p>Alex Azar, the head of the unconstitutional Department of Health and Human Services was quoted as saying:</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;We will not stand idly by as these products become an on-ramp to combustible cigarettes or nicotine addiction for a generation of youth.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>It seems the Trump White House is taking the moral stance of &#8220;saving the children&#8221; when attacking the vape issue. An <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/health/trump-vaping.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">article in the <em>New York Times</em></a> stated:</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The White House and the F.D.A. have faced mounting pressure from lawmakers, public health officials, parents and educators, who have grown alarmed by the popularity of vaping among teenagers but have felt powerless to keep e-cigarettes away from students and out of schools.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>The federal government&#8217;s reasoning is that flavored vape juice is specifically targeting the youth, therefore a ban of all flavored vape products will help solve this issue.</p> <p>In fact, vape juice is basically the same substance used in theatrical fog and haze machines at concerts, plays, and night clubs. People have been breathing it in since the 70&#8217;s without an epidemic of deaths. All of the arguments presented by the HSS and CDC fail when logic is applied.</p> <p>But there is a more fundamental issue. The federal government doesn&#8217;t have the power to ban vape juice. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it required a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol.</p> <p>The point is vaping is a life-choice. When you form a government with specific, limited powers and then unconstitutionally use that government to limit people&#8217;s choices, you are setting people up to be criminals based on nothing more than their curiosity to be free. It&#8217;s a dangerous precedent. Once you consent to them regulating your own choices as a free human being, it opens the door to ultimate tyranny. We&#8217;ve seen how the federal government gives usurped power back&#8230;wait, we haven&#8217;t because they <strong>never</strong> give it back.</p> <p>You see, this vaping ban isn&#8217;t really about vaping, or public health, or even saving the children. This is about taking baby-steps toward controlling the personal choices of the entire populace. The government starts with hot-button issues like guns, drugs, and now vape juice &#8212; any issue in which the populace is split between freedom and safety. The feds step in and rally a moral cause to usurp the right of the people to make a free choice and then they never give it back.</p> <p>This is precisely why the framers created a federal government with limited powers. They understood that without strict limits, government would grow and grow.</p> <p>Tenth Amendment clearly states:</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>There is no rare interpretation of this amendment as MSNBC claims. This amendment is one of the most CLEARLY laid out limits on power.</p> <p>All just forms of government come from the CONSENT of the governed (as was stated in the Declaration of Independence.) The Tenth Amendment is in plain English, virtually unencumbered by the 18th-century legalese that creates confusion about other constitutional provisions. It says that any right not specifically delegated to the federal government (which is encapsulated primarily by article 1 section 8) remains the right of the several states, or to the people (meaning the people of the several states as they are giving their consent to government.)</p> <p>People are left to make decisions about things like vaping in their own communities. The federal government has no say.</p> <p>Humans are curious, and most of the time when you tell someone they cannot eat, drink, wear, or know something, it only drives their curiosity to do that thing. Think of a world where that freedom of personal exploration and your basic human freedom of making a personal choice is taken from you little by little. After a long while your freedom is only given at the behest of your government. If you can&#8217;t imagine a situation like that, then just take a look around. We are living in one.</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 FDA tenth amendment Trump vaping John Michaels Michigan Committee Neuters Bill That Would Have Banned Facial Recognition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/michigan-committee-neuters-bill-that-would-have-banned-facial-recognition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ef1955b1-f531-209d-2ecb-de680cc22739 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 19:20:21 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/michigan-committee-neuters-bill-that-would-have-banned-facial-recognition/" title="Michigan Committee Neuters Bill That Would Have Banned Facial Recognition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/04/shutterstock_157681031-michigan-flag-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/2019/04/shutterstock_157681031-michigan-flag-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/shutterstock_157681031-michigan-flag-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/shutterstock_157681031-michigan-flag-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/shutterstock_157681031-michigan-flag-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/shutterstock_157681031-michigan-flag-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>LANSING, Mich. (Oct. 15, 2019) &#8211; A Michigan Senate committee amended a bill that would have banned law enforcement use of facial recognition, effectively stripping it of most of its practical effect. Sen. Peter Lucido (R) introduced Senate Bill 342 (SB342) on May 22. As introduced, the legislation would have prohibited law enforcement officials from [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/michigan-committee-neuters-bill-that-would-have-banned-facial-recognition/" title="Michigan Committee Neuters Bill That Would Have Banned Facial Recognition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/04/shutterstock_157681031-michigan-flag-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/2019/04/shutterstock_157681031-michigan-flag-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/shutterstock_157681031-michigan-flag-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/shutterstock_157681031-michigan-flag-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/shutterstock_157681031-michigan-flag-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/shutterstock_157681031-michigan-flag-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p><strong>LANSING</strong>, Mich. (Oct. 15, 2019) &#8211; A Michigan Senate committee amended a bill that would have banned law enforcement use of facial recognition, effectively stripping it of most of its practical effect.<span id="more-33632"></span></p> <p>Sen. Peter Lucido (R) introduced Senate Bill 342 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/bill/SB0342/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB342</a>) on May 22. As introduced, the legislation would have prohibited law enforcement officials from obtaining, accessing or using any facial recognition technology, along with any information gathered from such technology. Any information obtained in violation of the law would have been inadmissible in court “as if the evidence, arrest warrant, or search warrant was obtained in violation of Amendment IV of the Constitution of the United States and section 11 of Article I of the state constitution of 1963.” In effect, the introduced version would have imposed a total ban on the use of facial recognition technology by Michigan law enforcement.</p> <p>On Oct. 8, the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety passed an amended version of the bill <a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/rollcall/SB0342/id/895040" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">by a 6-1 vote</a>. With the amendment, the ban only applies &#8220;real-time&#8221; facial recognition. In effect, this would prohibit police from running facial recognition with &#8220;the constant scanning of live video feeds.&#8221; It would bar police from &#8220;instantaneously matching moving faces with a database of still images.&#8221;</p> <p>While this would take a small step forward, it would still allow police to continue using facial recognition with no restriction or oversight in most situations. Law enforcement will still be able to pull footage from cameras and then run it against facial recognition &#8211; just not in real-time.</p> <p>The <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/13/detroit-mayor-misleads-public-about-facial-recognition-as-debate-over-spy-program-rages/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Detroit mayor recently tried to deflect criticism of that city&#8217;s facial recognition program</a> claiming, “Let me be clear: there will be no facial recognition software used with <strong>live stream video</strong> by the (Detroit Police Department). That’s not what we’re doing, and that’s not ever what was intended.” As the <em>Detroit Free Press </em>interpreted the tweet and a subsequent video, the mayor was attempting to “shut down any notion that the department was using facial recognition software, a technology which has been widely criticized for issues ranging from privacy overreach to high-error rates, specifically when used on black and brown individuals.”</p> <p>If you carefully read what the mayor said, you will realize he never claimed the police department wasn’t using facial recognition at all. He just said it wasn’t using it on “live stream video.” In other words, police aren’t running facial recognition in real-time. But they are using the technology on still images plucked from reams of footage collected by cameras all around the city. As Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center senior policy analyst Daniel Lawrence told the <em>Detriot Free Press</em>, this is a difference without any real distinction.</p> <blockquote><p>“In all my experience with facial recognition, the way the process and programming works is that it takes a still image from the video. I’m not knowledgeable of any facial recognition software that’s taking real video. It’s taking a still from a video.”</p></blockquote> <p>In other words, SB342, as amended, will do little to stop facial recognition as it is currently being used in Michigan. It will merely ban a practice that apparently isn&#8217;t being pursued, at least not in the state&#8217;s biggest city. While it is important to prohibit real-time use of facial recognition (some cities in other states have expressed interest in such systems), it is only a small step forward. If passed, SB342 will leave most, if not all, facial recognition programs in Michigan fully operational.</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>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information.</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 facial recognition Michigan Privacy SB342 surveillance Mike Maharrey What Exactly Is a “Constitutional Crisis”? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/what-exactly-is-a-constitutional-crisis/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:c8018808-fd92-0e02-e027-8ddcdf97ae50 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 12:16:03 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/what-exactly-is-a-constitutional-crisis/" title="What Exactly Is a &#8220;Constitutional Crisis&#8221;?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-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/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>You here the word term &#8220;constitutional crisis&#8221; thrown around a lot. But what does it actually mean? I was recently part of a documentary project put together by the Federalist Society that chronicles three historical constitutional crises and what they teach us. WATCH The documentary titled &#8220;What Is a &#8216;Constitutional Crisis&#8217;?&#8221; features not only me, [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/what-exactly-is-a-constitutional-crisis/" title="What Exactly Is a &#8220;Constitutional Crisis&#8221;?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-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/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/maharrey-federalist-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>You here the word term &#8220;constitutional crisis&#8221; thrown around a lot. But what does it actually mean? I was recently part of a documentary project put together by the Federalist Society that chronicles three historical constitutional crises and what they teach us.<span id="more-33631"></span></p> <p><strong>WATCH</strong><br /> <iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/xTNh5EgzNjA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p>The documentary titled &#8220;What Is a &#8216;Constitutional Crisis&#8217;?&#8221; features not only me, but also friend of the Tenth Amendment Center, Professor Kevin Gutzman, along with Professor Robert L. Tsai from American University.</p> <p>We discuss the &#8220;Nullification Crisis&#8221; of 1832-1833, the presidential succession crisis after the death of Pres. William Henry Harrison, and the election controversy of 1876.</p> <p>Each of these events reveals important lessons for today. In my view, the most significant insight is the importance of following the Constitution every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses. Most &#8220;constitutional crisis&#8221; arise when people fail to follow the Constitution.</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 History Interviews Constitution John Tyler Nullification Crisis Rutherford Hayes Samuel Tilden William Henry Harrison Mike Maharrey Michigan Committee Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying and Electronic Data Collection https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/michigan-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-stingray-spying-and-electronic-data-collection/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:b4742f44-7e26-c29a-13d0-9b3b449ae1e9 Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:13:02 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/michigan-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-stingray-spying-and-electronic-data-collection/" title="Michigan Committee Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying and Electronic Data Collection" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/stingray-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/stingray-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/stingray-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/stingray-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/stingray-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/stingray-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>LANSING, Mich. (Oct. 14, 2019) – Last week, a Michigan Senate committee passed a bill that would prohibit the warrantless use of stingray devices and the collection of electronic data stored by service providers in most situations. Enactment of the bill would not only protect privacy in Michigan; it would also hinder the federal surveillance [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/michigan-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-stingray-spying-and-electronic-data-collection/" title="Michigan Committee Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Stingray Spying and Electronic Data Collection" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/stingray-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/stingray-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/stingray-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/stingray-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/stingray-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/stingray-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p><strong>LANSING</strong>, Mich. (Oct. 14, 2019) – Last week, a Michigan Senate committee passed a bill that would prohibit the warrantless use of stingray devices and the collection of electronic data stored by service providers in most situations. Enactment of the bill would not only protect privacy in Michigan; it would also hinder the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-33635"></span></p> <p>Sen. Pete Lucido (R) introduced Senate Bill 341 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/bill/SB0341/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB341</a>) on May 22. Titled <em>The Electronic Information and Data Privacy Act</em>, 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, 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.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, police would have to get a warrant based on probable cause before using a stingray, or any other method, to obtain the location information, stored data, or transmitted data of an electronic device in most situations. Law enforcement agents would also have to get a warrant before obtaining information and data uploaded to a remote computing service (i.e. the cloud) or from service providers. The legislation would also require police to destroy any incidentally collected data not covered under the warrant.</p> <p>SB341 includes some exceptions to the warrant requirement, including certain emergency situations, if the device is reported stolen by the owner, informed consent by the owner or the user of the device, and in accordance with judicially recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, any data illegally gathered would be inadmissible in court.</p> <blockquote><p>“All electronic information or data and records of a provider of an electronic communications service or remote computing service pertaining to a subscriber or customer that are obtained in violation of the provisions of this act are subject to the rules governing exclusion as if the records were obtained in violation of Amendment IV to the Constitution of the United States and section 11 of article I of the state constitution of 1963.”</p></blockquote> <p>Last Tuesday, the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety passed SB341 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/rollcall/SB0341/id/895083" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a 6-1 vote</a> with some technical amendments.</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 SB341 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>SB341 will now move to the full Senate 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 Stingrays cell site simulator Location Tracking Michigan Privacy SB341 stingray surveillance Mike Maharrey Confirmed: NSA Spying is as Bad as You Thought https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/confirmed-nsa-spying-is-as-bad-as-you-thought/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:52b0f4f3-4aae-8bb7-65db-72a534bb766f Mon, 14 Oct 2019 17:35:37 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/confirmed-nsa-spying-is-as-bad-as-you-thought/" title="Confirmed: NSA Spying is as Bad as You Thought" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/path-101419.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/2019/10/path-101419.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-101419-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-101419-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-101419-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-101419-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-101419-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-101419-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Recently declassified court documents confirmed some of our worst suspicions about NSA spying. The FBI is in on the unconstitutional warrantless surveillance &#8211; and in a big way. Path to Liberty: October 14, 2019 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes &#124; Google Play &#124; Stitcher &#124; Spotify &#124; RSS SHOW LINKS: JOIN TAC Show Archives Subscribe and [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/confirmed-nsa-spying-is-as-bad-as-you-thought/" title="Confirmed: NSA Spying is as Bad as You Thought" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/path-101419.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/2019/10/path-101419.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-101419-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-101419-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-101419-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-101419-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-101419-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-101419-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Recently declassified court documents confirmed some of our worst suspicions about NSA spying. The FBI is in on the unconstitutional warrantless surveillance &#8211; and in a big way.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: October 14, 2019<span id="more-33634"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/B_ERX9nmW88?start=55" 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="spotify: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/2019/10/14/all-the-bad-stuff-youve-heard-about-nsa-spying-confirmed/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">All the Bad Stuff You’ve Heard About NSA Spying Confirmed</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6464604-2018-FISC-Ruling-Shows-How-FBI-Abused-NSA-Mass.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Declassified Court Opinion</a></p> <p><a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/fbi-nsa-mass-surveillance-abuse/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">How the FBI Abused NSA Surveillance Data</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/91a875ce-3fb9-4809-95b8-4142c0e6117e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/fhq8efI1rwuO/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/494536957" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1ynJOwPYolOJR" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+nxoqDHoWR" 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 Surveillance Assessments FBI FISC National Security NSA surveillance Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 26:39 Recently declassified court documents confirmed some of our worst suspicions about NSA spying. The FBI is in on the unconstitutional warrantless surveillance – and in a big way. Path to Liberty: October 14, Recently declassified court documents confirmed some of our worst suspicions about NSA spying. The FBI is in on the unconstitutional warrantless surveillance – and in a big way. Path to Liberty: October 14, 2019 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | Spotify | RSS SHOW LINKS: JOIN TAC Show Archives Subscribe and […] Feds Targeting People for the “Crime” of Speaking Spanish https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/feds-targeting-people-for-the-crime-of-speaking-spanish/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:9d5043eb-63bc-9c88-5797-6eb34ef93271 Mon, 14 Oct 2019 11:24:44 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/feds-targeting-people-for-the-crime-of-speaking-spanish/" title="Feds Targeting People for the &#8220;Crime&#8221; of Speaking Spanish" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-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/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>In New England, undercover Federal agents are following people into stores and interrogating them simply because they are speaking a foreign language. Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit claiming that the U.S. Border Patrol is sending undercover agents into stores to interrogate and arrest suspected illegal immigrants because they were speaking Spanish. Exhibit [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/feds-targeting-people-for-the-crime-of-speaking-spanish/" title="Feds Targeting People for the &#8220;Crime&#8221; of Speaking Spanish" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-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/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/interrogation-room-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>In New England, undercover Federal agents are following people into stores and interrogating them simply because they are speaking a foreign language.<span id="more-33594"></span></p> <p>Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a <a href="https://www.aclu-nh.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/cbp_foia_1.0_complaint_-_final_9.17.19_1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">lawsuit</a> claiming that the U.S. Border Patrol is sending undercover agents into stores to interrogate and arrest suspected illegal immigrants because they were speaking Spanish.</p> <p><a href="https://www.aclu-nh.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/cbp_foia_1.3_exhibit_c_avilas_lucas_i-213.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Exhibit C</a> of the complaint gives a detailed account of how two Border Patrol agents, James Loomis and Brendan Burns, followed a few alleged illegal immigrants from Vermont into a <a href="http://www.listencs.org/thrift-stores" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">thrift shop</a> in West Lebanon, New Hampshire.</p> <p>On March 20th, 2019, agents Loomis and Burns were in an unmarked service vehicle in plain clothes with no badges or weapons visible when they followed Carlos Avila-Lucas and his friends into a thrift shop and interrogated them.</p> <p>&#8220;Loomis asked Avila, &#8216;How are you today?&#8217; Avila responded in broken English, &#8216;Good, thank you.&#8217; Loomis then responded to the subject saying, &#8216;They have some good stuff in here, don&#8217;t they?&#8217; Avila appeared confused as if he didn&#8217;t quite understand what Loomis had said.&#8221;</p> <p>DHS claims that Avila, &#8220;appeared uninterested with conversing with Loomis so the conversation ended.&#8221; And that should have been the end of it right?</p> <p>But it wasn&#8217;t.</p> <p>According to Exhibit C, Loomis moved over to another part of the store and began to question the second subject (later identified as Batz-Tzul) whom he had seen exit the Chevrolet Suburban.</p> <p>&#8220;Loomis observed Batz pick up a small speaker and asked Batz, &#8216;Hey sir, is that a speaker?&#8217;  Batz replied in very broken English, &#8216;Yes, this speaks,&#8217; as he motioned his hand to imply a mouth talking. Loomis then asked Batz, &#8216;I&#8217;m looking for a microwave, do you know where they keep those?&#8217; Batz looked confused and stated, &#8216;No speak English.&#8217; Loomis then asked Batz, &#8216;You don&#8217;t. speak English, what. language do you speak?&#8217; Batz replied, &#8216;Spanish.&#8217;  Loomis then asked Batz, &#8216;Where are you from?&#8217; Batz replied, &#8216;Guatemala.'&#8221;</p> <p>In the Exhibit, DHS referred to these interrogations as &#8220;consensual encounters.&#8221;</p> <p>How are these &#8220;consensual encounters&#8221; with law enforcement?  How would anyone know that they are really federal agents masquerading as everyday people asking questions?</p> <p>Is this what it means to be a part of law enforcement today?  Hiding one&#8217;s identity hoping to get someone to admit that they are here illegally?</p> <p>According to the <i>New York Times</i>, Border Patrol agents have been following people into stores for speaking Spanish since <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/montana-border-patrol-agents-spanish-speaking.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">at least 2018.</a></p> <p>&#8220;Ana Suda does not recall what they discussed while they browsed the store, but she knows they conversed in Spanish.&#8221;</p> <p>That was all it took for a Border Patrol agent also in the store to interject. &#8220;He looked at us and said, Where are you guys born? ” Ms. Suda said. (To find out about Suda&#8217;s lawsuit click <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/2/14/18225213/border-patrol-lawsuit-montana-spanish" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>.)</p> <p>As recently as four days ago, <i>WGME 13</i> in Bangor, Maine<a href="https://wgme.com/news/local/border-patrol-questioned-family-in-bangor-because-they-looked-central-american" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> revealed</a> that Border Patrol agents followed a family into a store because they looked Central-American.</p> <p>The family “appeared to be of Central-American origin,” a Border Patrol agent wrote in federal court records, and the agents “overheard several people speaking Spanish” inside the store. Then, the agents approached the people and asked where they were from.</p> <p>Undercover federal agents following people into stores based solely on speaking a foreign language turns America into a <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=151410" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">quasi-police state</a>.</p> <p>If DHS is allowed to use the Patriot Act to target people for speaking a foreign language, what&#8217;s to stop them from taking it a step further?</p> <p>What&#8217;s to stop Federal agents from targeting activists and anti-government protesters or anyone else the government wants to make an example of?</p> <p>How long before Border Patrol agents start targeting journalists and accuse them of being <a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/political/airport-customs-agent-badgers-journalist-wont-let-pass-until-he-admits-writing-propaganda">propaganda writers</a>?  Oh right, that is already happening.</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> Immigration ICE Police surveillance jprivate All the Bad Stuff You’ve Heard About NSA Spying Confirmed https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/14/all-the-bad-stuff-youve-heard-about-nsa-spying-confirmed/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:f17e88c5-33f3-ad71-55da-f66880a239c2 Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:59:46 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/14/all-the-bad-stuff-youve-heard-about-nsa-spying-confirmed/" title="All the Bad Stuff You&#8217;ve Heard About NSA Spying Confirmed" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-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/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Recently declassified court documents confirmed all of our worst suspicions about NSA spying. Many people view NSA spying as relatively harmless. They argue it doesn&#8217;t violate the Fourth Amendment because the agency doesn&#8217;t even look at most of the information it collects. This is a fallacious argument. Virtually nobody would sit by and let federal [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/14/all-the-bad-stuff-youve-heard-about-nsa-spying-confirmed/" title="All the Bad Stuff You&#8217;ve Heard About NSA Spying Confirmed" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-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/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/surveillance-cameras-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Recently declassified court documents confirmed all of our worst suspicions about NSA spying.<span id="more-28809"></span></p> <p>Many people view NSA spying as relatively harmless. They argue it doesn&#8217;t violate the Fourth Amendment because the agency doesn&#8217;t even look at most of the information it collects.</p> <p>This is a fallacious argument. Virtually nobody would sit by and let federal agents come into their home, make photocopies of all their personal papers and then store them away with the promise of &#8220;we won&#8217;t look at them without a warrant.&#8221; Sweeping up and storing electronic data is no different.</p> <p>Even if you buy these silly legal gymnastics, by storing phone calls, emails, location information, and web searches belonging to millions of Americans, the NSA facilitates unconstitutional, warrantless surveillance.</p> <p>And a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6464604-2018-FISC-Ruling-Shows-How-FBI-Abused-NSA-Mass.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">138-page ruling</a> by U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg confirmed just that. It revealed that the FBI regularly accessed millions of Americans&#8217; data that was unconstitutionally gathered and stored by the federal spy agency. The government is accessing this information. It is not obtaining warrants. And this <em>does</em> violate the Fourth Amendment.</p> <p>ACLU staff attorney Patrick Toomey <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/fbi-nsa-mass-surveillance-abuse/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">told <em>The Intercept</em></a> that the FBI used the information for &#8220;fishing expeditions.&#8221;</p> <blockquote><p>“These opinions reveal devastating problems with the FBI’s backdoor searches, which often resembled fishing expeditions through Americans’ personal emails and online messages. But the court did not go nearly far enough to fix those abuses. The Constitution requires FBI agents to get a warrant before they go combing through our sensitive communications.”</p></blockquote> <p>Documents leaked by Edward Snowden revealed the existence of warrantless dragnet surveillance programs run by the NSA. The court ruling centered around spying &#8220;authorized&#8221; under Sec. 702 of the Foreign Service Intelligence Act (FISA). Under this provision, the government can collect data on Americans who are communicating with non-U.S. citizens without a warrant.</p> <p>As <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/01/andrew-p-napolitano/congress-plotting-to-cut-a-hole-in-the-4th-amendment-again/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Andrew Napolitano explained</a>, “the FISA-created process permits a secret court in Washington to issue general warrants based on the government’s need to gather intelligence about national security from foreigners among us. It pretends that the standard is probable cause of foreign agency, but this has now morphed into the issuance of general warrants whenever the government wants them.”</p> <p>A typical FISA warrant authorizes government surveillance on all landlines, mobile devices and desktop computers in a given area. While the process was created to monitor foreign agents, it sweeps up reams of data belonging to Americans.</p> <p>The Electronic Frontier Foundation <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/lofgren-amash-amendment-would-change-rules-warrantless-surveillance" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">explained the scope of FISA surveillance on Americans</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>Section 702 allows the government to collect and store the communications of foreign intelligence targets outside of the U.S if a significant purpose is to collect “foreign intelligence” information.  Although the law contains some protections—for example, a prohibition on knowingly collecting communications between two U.S. citizens on U.S. soil—we have learned that the program actually does sweep up billions of communications involving people not explicitly targeted, including Americans. For example, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-nsa-intercepted-data-those-not-targeted-far-outnumber-the-foreigners-who-are/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a 2014 report</a> by the Washington Post that reviewed of a “large cache of intercepted conversations” provided by Edward Snowden revealed that 9 out of 10 account holders “were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else.”</p></blockquote> <p>Congress renewed Sec 702 in 2018 with some minor reforms. But before approving a six-year extension, the House voted to kill an amendment that would have more significantly overhauled the surveillance program and addressed some privacy concerns. Provisions in the amendment would have required agents to get warrants in most cases before hunting for and reading Americans’ emails and other messages that get swept up under the program.</p> <p>Then Congress had another opportunity to significantly rein in surveillance under Sec. 702 earlier this summer, but <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/congress-fails-to-rein-in-warrantless-surveillance-again/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">it voted down an amendment</a> to an appropriations bill that would have effectively prohibited the warrantless collection of data from Americans.</p> <p>According to the recently declassified court documents, the FBI was the agency most often accessing NSA data about &#8220;U.S. persons,&#8221; defined as any U.S. citizen or foreign national legally in the United States. <em>The Intercept</em> detailed the extent of the FBI&#8217;s data-mining.</p> <blockquote><p>Queries of this data are known as “backdoor searches.” In 2017, the FBI ran approximately 3.1 million searches related to U.S. persons, compared to 7,500 combined searches by the CIA and NSA during the same year. Many of the FBI’s searches were not legally justified because they did not involve a predicated criminal investigation or other proper justification for the search, as required by law, according to Boasberg’s FISA court.</p></blockquote> <p>The FBI often accesses NSA data using an investigative tool known as an &#8220;<a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/based-on-a-vague-tip-the-feds-can-surveil-anyone/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">assessment</a>.&#8221; The power was created after 9/11 and allows the agency to investigate anyone on evidence as flimsy as an anonymous tip. As <em>The Intercept</em> explained, &#8220;Because assessments are de facto national security inquiries, the FBI has viewed this as authority to search mass surveillance data for Americans’ communications.&#8221;</p> <p>The court ruling also revealed evidence of &#8220;parallel construction.&#8221; Using this secretive process, police build cases on illegally obtained, warrantless data collected by the NSA and other federal agencies without anybody ever knowing. Once investigators have built a secret case on warrantless data, they obtain warrants bases on the illegally gathered information and create a parallel case with the illusion of constitutional legitimacy.</p> <p>Former NSA technical director William Binney called parallel construction “the most threatening situation to our constitutional republic since the Civil War.”</p> <p>As The Intercept explained, &#8220;Boasberg noted an example that fits this pattern as an inappropriate use of FISA data. On November 11, 2017, the FBI conducted a search of mass surveillance data on “a potential recipient of a FISA order.” In other words, the FBI was able to mine mass surveillance data to find out what evidence agents would discover if they went ahead and requested the FISA order.&#8221;</p> <p>Congress will never rein in warrantless surveillance. It has had ample opportunity. In fact, Congress has had over 40 years to address these privacy issues. In 1975, Sen. Frank Church <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAG1N4a84Dk" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">warned us about the surveillance state</a>, saying it created the potential for ‘total tyranny.” That was before widespread public access to the Internet, before cellphones and before the proliferation of email.</p> <p>Today, the technological capacity of the NSA and other federal agencies exceeds anything Church imagined. And yet 40 years later, Congress hasn’t done anything to rein in the surveillance. It never will. That’s why it’s up to states to take action. For more information on how, click <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/4th-amendment-protection-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">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> Surveillance FBI fourth-amendment NSA Privacy Mike Maharrey Why recent attacks on the Constitution are wrong https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/12/why-recent-attacks-on-the-constitution-are-wrong/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:35885462-c520-0d6e-1bc2-1da5180877ed Sat, 12 Oct 2019 14:25:26 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/12/why-recent-attacks-on-the-constitution-are-wrong/" title="Why recent attacks on the Constitution are wrong" 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-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, 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="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Americans traditionally have revered their Constitution. As they should—if only because of the astounding success the United States has enjoyed under its governance. However, the Constitution always has had critics, particularly among those who believe the federal government should be all-powerful rather than limited in scope. Socialists, for example, recognize that the Constitution’s restrictions on [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/12/why-recent-attacks-on-the-constitution-are-wrong/" title="Why recent attacks on the Constitution are wrong" 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-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/constitution-iStock_20306051_XXXLARGE-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, 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="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Americans traditionally have revered their Constitution. As they should—if only because of the astounding success the United States has enjoyed under its governance.</p> <p>However, the Constitution always has had critics, particularly among those who believe the federal government should be all-powerful rather than limited in scope. Socialists, for example, recognize that the Constitution’s restrictions on federal authority could frustrate their plans for intrusive government programs, such as the Green New Deal.</p> <p>Recently socialism has come back into fashion, thereby intensifying the assaults on the Constitution. These assaults come from politicians, political activists, and academics—including many academics who should know better.</p> <p>Most of these attacks reveal ignorance of the reasons behind the Constitution’s rules and of the history of the document’s drafting and ratification. That history encompasses the framing of the document in 1787 and its ratification by popularly elected conventions in the 13 original states and in Vermont, meeting from late 1787 through 1791.</p> <p>One common charge against the Constitution is that it is “undemocratic.” Certainly the Constitution sometimes denies temporary majorities their immediate wishes. For example, the First Amendment prohibits most laws restricting speech, even when a majority favors enacting them. And sometimes, though rarely, the <u>presidential election system</u> (of which one component is the Electoral College) produces a winner who did not garner a plurality of the national popular vote.</p> <p>Why does the Constitution restrict majorities that way? Because the Founders recognized that for self-governance to work, it must respect certain rules, including rules that curb majority demands. The Founders had learned from history that when democracies tyrannize minorities, they degenerate into dictatorships or civil war.</p> <p>Subsequent history has amply vindicated the Founders’ judgment. Democracies in which temporary majorities can squelch dissenting speech do not last long. Countries that elect their chief executives by simple <a href="https://i2i.org/national-popular-vote-a-banana-republic-election-system-for-america/">popular pluralities </a>suffer from instability and corruption.</p> <p>Another common claim is that the Constitution is sexist because it allegedly discriminates against women and was adopted only by men. But that claim is substantially false. Nothing in the document discriminates against women. The drafting convention of 1787 deliberately composed it in a <a href="https://i2i.org/a-woman-as-president-the-gender-neutral-constitution/">gender-neutral </a>way, foreseeing that women eventually would participate more fully in national politics. Some of the Constitution’s opponents criticized this, but the framers’ foresight proved accurate when an amendment protecting female suffrage <a href="https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment19.html">was added </a>to the Constitution in 1919.</p> <p>Nor is it factual to say that the Constitution was adopted only by men. It is true that when the document was ratified most states did not allow women to vote. But women participated actively in the public debate over ratification. They also <a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/Petticoat-Electors.pdf">comprised</a> a significant portion of the New Jersey electorate, which supported the Constitution overwhelmingly. There are fragmentary records of women voting in other locations as well.</p> <p>Still another charge is that the Constitution was adopted by slaveholders. If this were true, it would not be surprising: At the time almost every nation recognized slavery.</p> <p>In fact, however, the claim that slaveholders adopted the Constitution is substantially false.</p> <p>The 1787 convention drafted the Constitution, but it became law only when ratified by popular conventions meeting each state. Slaveholders comprised only a tiny percentage of the voters electing state delegates. Similarly, slaveholders probably comprised only a sliver of the 1757 delegates in the 14 state ratifying conventions.</p> <p>Slaveholding was more prevalent among the delegates to the drafting convention. Key figures such as George Washington, James Madison, John Rutledge, and Edmund Randolph were slaveholders. On the other hand, most of the key delegates held no slaves. These included John Dickinson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris. Indeed, most of these men actively opposed slavery. Dickinson had inherited slaves, but emancipated all of them.</p> <p>Moreover, many prominent slaveholders, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason, opposed ratification. If the Constitution is discredited because some of its supporters owned slaves, then opposition to the Constitution should be equally discredited.</p> <p>Finally, the “based on slavery” argument disregards the fact that leaders in the founding generation acknowledged that slavery violated natural law and were working for its extinction. For example, in the 11 years between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention, some states enacted emancipation laws and most abolished the international slave trade.</p> <p>The common claim that the Constitution was adopted only by white people is also substantially false. Most states granted the voting franchise to those Indians who renounced tribal loyalties. The United States population included about 60,000 free African-Americans, and five states enfranchised them as well.</p> <p>Even more baseless is the claim that the Constitution was adopted only by “the rich.” In fact, the electorate that approved the Constitution consisted primarily of small farmers, merchants, and tradesmen. Property requirements for voting were modest in most states, and some states dropped even those requirements for the ratification elections.</p> <p>Still another charge is that the Constitution is racist because it was based on the “<a href="http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html">the idea</a> that a black person was three-fifths of a human being.”</p> <p>Actually, the text of the U.S. Constitution is color blind, unlike some of the then-existing state constitutions. However, the charge of racism is based on the original Constitution’s Three-Fifths Clause. It provided that a state’s direct tax burden and its representation in the House of Representatives were generally determined by its population—but that five slaves would count as only three free persons.</p> <p>The critics show themselves ignorant of the wording, purpose, and history of the Three-Fifths Clause. As I have <a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/tax-article-pdf-final.pdf">explained elsewhere</a>, this provision was not fundamentally about race: Citizen-Indians and free African-Americans were counted exactly as whites were counted.</p> <p>The reason for the Clause was that the framers believed that representation should follow taxation, and taxation should be based on ability to pay. A congressional study had shown that because slaves could not sell their labor on the open market, they produced only about 60 percent as much wealth as free persons, thereby reducing a state’s ability to pay taxes.</p> <p>Although the three-fifths formula frequently is described as a concession to slavery, it can also be described as a punishment for slavery, because it denied slave states the full population-based representation enjoyed by free states.<br /> That having been said, the three-fifths rule is simply irrelevant today because it was removed from the Constitution over 150 years ago.</p> <p>Perhaps the most nonsensical charge I have heard is that the Electoral College was created to support slavery. There is almost no evidence to support this.</p> <p>On the contrary: Other than a brief remark by James Madison at the 1787 drafting convention, the constitutional debates over the Electoral College were almost entirely divorced from the issue of slavery. Not only does the historical record no connection between the slavery and the Electoral College, but in the drafting convention the three states most committed to slavery—Georgia and the Carolinas—all voted <em>against</em> the Electoral College!</p> <p><strong>This article was <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-recent-attacks-on-the-constitution-are-wrong_3071685.html">originally published</a> in the September 10, 2019 <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> Constitution Three-Fifths Clause Electoral College racism slavery Rob Natelson Bump Stock Owners Refuse To Comply With Federal Ban https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/bump-stock-owners-refuse-to-comply-with-federal-ban/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:8bcf8f82-a18f-8653-903c-96b31665ecf2 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 20:24:46 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/bump-stock-owners-refuse-to-comply-with-federal-ban/" title="Bump Stock Owners Refuse To Comply With Federal Ban" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200.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/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200-300x200.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200-768x512.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200-150x100.jpg 150w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200-50x33.jpg 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200-75x50.jpg 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a>Bump stock owners aren&#8217;t complying with an illegal federal ban approved through an unconstitutional bureaucratic process via the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. According to the Washington Times, only 1,000 bump stocks were collected in the run-up to the March deadline. There are between 280,000 to 520,000 bump stocks in circulation, according to [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/bump-stock-owners-refuse-to-comply-with-federal-ban/" title="Bump Stock Owners Refuse To Comply With Federal Ban" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="800" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200.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/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200-300x200.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200-768x512.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200-150x100.jpg 150w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200-50x33.jpg 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/04/bigstock-No-30906860-1200-75x50.jpg 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><p>Bump stock owners aren&#8217;t complying with an illegal federal ban approved through an unconstitutional bureaucratic process via the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.<span id="more-33613"></span></p> <p>According to the <em>Washington Times</em>, only <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/6/bump-stock-ban-failure-omen-gun-buyback-plan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">1,000 bump stocks were collected</a> in the run-up to the March deadline. There are between 280,000 to 520,000 bump stocks in circulation, according to the Justice Department.</p> <p>To give a comparison, the feds would have to replicate that same rate of the collection either 280 or 520 times in order to recover all the remaining bump stocks – and that’s assuming more devices are not secretly manufactured and sold in the meantime.</p> <p>Why is this important?</p> <p>It is nullification in effect on an individual level. Hundreds of thousands of people simply said, &#8220;We will not comply.&#8221;</p> <p>The pitiful level of compliance with this federal regulation by bump stock owners sends a clear message to D.C. &#8212; gun owners won’t comply with a decree violating their right to keep and bear arms even over a mere firearm accessory. It is a forewarning as to what lawmakers and gun grabbers can expect should they attempt to ban the possession of certain firearms disingenuously labeled “assault weapons.”</p> <p>To comply with this bump stock ban would be to merely encourage further confiscation efforts. But the lack of compliance makes it obvious that the policy is unpopular and would be expensive to enforce.</p> <p>That is precisely how medical and recreational marijuana was decriminalized by various states. Activists didn’t elect the right people into office. They didn’t persuade D.C. to reject the War on Drugs. They made it impractical and eventually impossible for prohibition to continue in any practical way,</p> <p>Noncompliance is the best and most effective way to protect our right to keep and bear arms. Just as nullification by states deprives the feds of critical resources and manpower to enforce those laws, individual noncompliance saps whatever resources they have and demonstrates how much of their laws rely on our cooperation.</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> Nullification Right to Keep and Bear Arms ATF bump stock Federal Bans second amendment TJ Martinell Big Government Lovers on Both Sides https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/big-government-lovers-on-both-sides/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:1919917f-5951-5179-d9ae-aae388ced171 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:16:01 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/big-government-lovers-on-both-sides/" title="Big Government Lovers on Both Sides" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119.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/2019/10/fast-friday-101119.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119-1080x608.jpg 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>A lot of people believe that when it comes to the size and scope of government, republicans are &#8220;better&#8221; or just &#8220;less bad&#8221; than their democrat counterparts. They talk the talk, about limiting government, and even the Constitution. But the evidence keeps coming in showing that at best, this is just about rhetoric. This time, [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/big-government-lovers-on-both-sides/" title="Big Government Lovers on Both Sides" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119.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/2019/10/fast-friday-101119.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119-1080x608.jpg 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-101119-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>A lot of people believe that when it comes to the size and scope of government, republicans are &#8220;better&#8221; or just &#8220;less bad&#8221; than their democrat counterparts. They talk the talk, about limiting government, and even the Constitution. But the evidence keeps coming in showing that at best, this is just about rhetoric. This time, 30 years of results in the states.</p> <p>Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 11, 2019<span id="more-33623"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/2Mc-2rWyIzk" 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="spotify: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/2019/10/05/trump-and-company-add-1-2-trillion-to-national-debt-in-fiscal-2019/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Trump and Company Add $1.2 Trillion to National Debt in Fiscal 2019</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/16/big-spenders-get-worse-every-year-the-history-of-growth-since-1940/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Big Spenders Get Worse Every Year: The History of Growth Since 1940</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/trump-2019-deficit-estimated-at-just-a-hair-under-1-trillion/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Trump 2019 Deficit Estimated at Just a Hair Under $1 Trillion</a></p> <p><a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-control-in-the-states-hasnt-stopped-the-growth-of-government/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Republican Control In The States Hasn’t Stopped The Growth Of Government</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/f80b756a-e940-4ad8-80d2-308b1b1fcc5b" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/lTeHZi6RnQCu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/493149465" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1mnxezwgnqaKX" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+Efi8bRTZg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B3fEiqAg4bv/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6588465666309914624" 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 The Opposition Democrats Republicans Spending Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 14:53 A lot of people believe that when it comes to the size and scope of government, republicans are “better” or just “less bad” than their democrat counterparts. They talk the talk, about limiting government, and even the Constitution. A lot of people believe that when it comes to the size and scope of government, republicans are “better” or just “less bad” than their democrat counterparts. They talk the talk, about limiting government, and even the Constitution. But the evidence keeps coming in showing that at best, this is just about rhetoric. This time, […] The Presidency and War Power https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/10/the-presidency-and-war-power/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:71fc7ad7-bf2f-89df-a12b-be6dda634985 Thu, 10 Oct 2019 22:54:04 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/10/the-presidency-and-war-power/" title="The Presidency and War Power" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280.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/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Readers of this column are familiar with the concept of the separation of powers, which James Madison crafted as integral to the Constitution. That concept mandates that Congress writes the laws, the president enforces them, the courts decide what they mean and interpret them, and the three branches of government don&#8217;t step on each other&#8217;s [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/10/the-presidency-and-war-power/" title="The Presidency and War Power" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280.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/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bigstock-Freedom-is-not-free-Dog-tag-29181590-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Readers of this column are familiar with the concept of the separation of powers, which James Madison crafted as integral to the Constitution. That concept mandates that Congress writes the laws, the president enforces them, the courts decide what they mean and interpret them, and the three branches of government don&#8217;t step on each other&#8217;s toes.<span id="more-28802"></span></p> <p>The separation of powers also recognizes that the Constitution reposes unique authority in each branch and, at times, in each house of Congress. For example, only the Senate can confirm judges and ambassadors and ratify treaties. Only the House can impeach high-ranking executive branch officials and federal judges. Only Congress can declare war, and only the president can decide how to use the military to fight a declared war.</p> <p>The war powers are clearly articulated in the plain language of the Constitution itself — Congress declares and the president wages. Madison himself argued that if the president could both declare and wage wars, he&#8217;d not be a president but a prince. This distinction between declaring and waging was recognized for nearly 200 years, until Congress muddied the waters in 1973 by enacting the War Powers Resolution.</p> <p>That law permits the president to wage any war against any foreign enemy without a congressional declaration of war for 90 days. This is clearly unconstitutional; the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the branches of the federal government cannot cede away powers that have been firmly fixed by the Constitution.</p> <p>When the tragedy of 9/11 took place, President George W. Bush did not use the War Powers Resolution as his legal basis for invading Afghanistan. Rather he sought express authority for the invasion from Congress. Congress, rather than declaring war on Afghanistan (Bush had persuaded Congress that the 9/11 culprits found haven there), enacted a morally ambivalent law known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001.</p> <p>That statute permitted Bush and his successors to fight against any foreign entity that planned or facilitated the 9/11 attacks and to continue fighting even after the targeted entity had been defeated. Bush sought and received another morally ambivalent AUMF in 2002, which authorized him to wage war in pursuit of any governments that harbored weapons of mass destruction, notably Iraq.</p> <p>I have characterized both AUMFs as morally ambivalent because they are open-ended. When Congress declared war on the Axis powers in December 1941, those declarations authorized President Franklin Roosevelt to wage war on them only until they surrendered and not thereafter. But the two AUMFs have no stated endpoint.</p> <p>They have an implied endpoint, however. The logical and moral endpoint of the AUMF of 2001 came when the folks who took over the government of Afghanistan and used its government power — this is Bush&#8217;s version — to stage and support 9/11 were defeated and killed. The logical and moral endpoint of AUMF of 2002 came when Saddam Hussein was deposed, no weapons of mass destruction were found, and Washington installed a friendly (lately, not so friendly) regime in Iraq.</p> <p>I offer this brief legal and historical background in order to address the current furor raging over the decision of President Donald Trump to withdraw American troops from Syria. From Syria? What are they doing in Syria?</p> <p>The United States has had a financial and quasi-military relationship with the Kurdish people who live in northern Iraq — an area they call Kurdistan — since the end of World War I. The financial support has come via covert sources. Stated differently, from the CIA. The Kurds — who are furious fighters — in turn have supported western interests in the region.</p> <p>In 2017, Trump ordered American troops into Syria to support the Kurds, whose homeland had become threatened by the forces combatting each other in Syria, and who were in the crosshairs of the president of Turkey. Trump used the AUMF of 2001 as his legal authority for sending troops to Syria. That, of course, was enacted to crush those who perpetrated 9/11, not to assist friendly groups 16 years later anywhere in the world.</p> <p>Nevertheless, Trump&#8217;s 2017 decision was consistent with the long-standing, nearly 100-year support that American governments have given to the Kurds. And the Kurds have relied on the continuation of that support.</p> <p>Last Sunday evening, Trump changed his mind about military support for the Kurds. He did so after a telephone conversation he had with the president of Turkey, who views the Kurds as terrorists. Trump was told that if American troops stayed in Syria, they risked injury by Turkish troops. If they left, the Kurds would be on their own.</p> <p>His decision to withdraw the troops caused a firestorm among those in Congress who like war and those who believe that the U.S. should be using our military amply in the Middle East to help our friends and oppose our foes. Yet, those in Congress who have cried out the loudest about Trump&#8217;s decision care not about the Constitution or even about the powers of Congress.</p> <p>Trump ran for office promising to bring the troops home. He may have made the latest decision to do so without adequate warning to his military commanders, but his decision is utterly consistent with his promises, and it is utterly in compliance with the Constitution.</p> <p>Now is the time for Congress — which is largely angry at the presidential use or nonuse of the military — to repeal both AUMFs and the War Powers Resolution and reclaim its constitutional power as the sole entity in the federal government able to declare war. Until it does, these profoundly outdated, morally ambivalent and overtly unconstitutional statutes lie in the presidential desk drawer like a loaded gun.</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> Congress Current Events Executive Power War Powers AUMF declaration-of-war Donald Trump president Syria War Powers Resolution Judge Andrew Napolitano Making Friends With Part-Time Libertarians https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/making-friends-with-part-time-libertarians/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f1697411-87c2-8889-8712-9f5a108d976f Thu, 10 Oct 2019 20:22:16 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/making-friends-with-part-time-libertarians/" title="Making Friends With Part-Time Libertarians" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/08/interview-microphone-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/2019/08/interview-microphone-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/08/interview-microphone-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/08/interview-microphone-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/08/interview-microphone-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/08/interview-microphone-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>I recently appeared on the Culinary Libertarian podcast to talk about &#8220;part-time libertarians.&#8221; So, what do we mean by part-time libertarians? Basically. we&#8217;re talking about people who have some libertarian impulses, but who probably wouldn&#8217;t label themselves as libertarians. For instance, a lot of people want to get the government out of the food regulation [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/making-friends-with-part-time-libertarians/" title="Making Friends With Part-Time Libertarians" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/08/interview-microphone-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/2019/08/interview-microphone-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/08/interview-microphone-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/08/interview-microphone-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/08/interview-microphone-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/08/interview-microphone-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>I recently appeared on the <a href="https://www.culinarylibertarian.com/49/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Culinary Libertarian podcast</a> to talk about &#8220;part-time libertarians.&#8221;<span id="more-33413"></span></p> <p>So, what do we mean by part-time libertarians? Basically. we&#8217;re talking about people who have some libertarian impulses, but who probably wouldn&#8217;t label themselves as libertarians. For instance, a lot of people want to get the government out of the food regulation business. They may be &#8220;big-government&#8221; on a lot of other issues, but when it comes to food, they want &#8220;food sovereignty.&#8221;</p> <p>You&#8217;ll find people with libertarian impulses on all kinds of issues, from the drug war, to surveillance, to gun control. This opens the door to building single-issue coalitions with people we might not normally consider allies.</p> <p>During this interview, Dan Reid and I talk about the value in reaching out to these people, the power of single-issue coalitions to limit government power and how it can eventually bring people over to &#8220;our side.&#8221;</p> <p><strong>LISTEN</strong><br /> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/yQ-iPhDO8b0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></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 Food Freedom Interviews food sovereignty Strategy Mike Maharrey Faithful Execution and “For Cause” Directors https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/faithful-execution-and-for-cause-directors/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d17ccef1-8ef8-6e5b-ffc3-15ab358fe02e Thu, 10 Oct 2019 11:45:27 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/faithful-execution-and-for-cause-directors/" title="Faithful Execution and &#8220;For Cause&#8221; Directors" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/04/law-justice-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/law-justice-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/law-justice-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/law-justice-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/law-justice-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/law-justice-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>In the New York Times, Jed Shugerman and Ethen Leib argue that the Faithful Execution Clause allows Congress to limit the President&#8217;s ability to remove agency directors (as in the CFPB and FHFA cases now pending for cert).  But their argument has a serious flaw that even they are forced to acknowledge and largely can&#8217;t answer. From the [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/faithful-execution-and-for-cause-directors/" title="Faithful Execution and &#8220;For Cause&#8221; Directors" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/04/law-justice-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/law-justice-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/law-justice-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/law-justice-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/law-justice-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/law-justice-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>In the <em>New York Time</em>s, Jed Shugerman and Ethen Leib <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/opinion/trump-supreme-court-fed.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&amp;smtyp=cur">argue</a> that the Faithful Execution Clause allows Congress to limit the President&#8217;s ability to remove agency directors (as in the CFPB and FHFA cases now pending for cert).  But their argument has a serious flaw that even they are forced to acknowledge and largely can&#8217;t answer.</p> <p>From the introduction:</p> <blockquote> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">First, the Department of Justice <a class="css-1g7m0tk" title="" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-7/116040/20190917144324154_19-7%20Seila%20Law.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">asked</a> the court to strike down the job security protections for the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was Senator Elizabeth Warren’s brainchild. Such restrictions on a president’s removal power, the argument goes, violate the separation of powers. Afterward, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders filed a surprising <a class="css-1g7m0tk" title="" href="https://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/20190926/fhfacertpetition.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">petition</a> making a similar argument about the Federal Housing Finance Agency.</p> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">But these arguments overlook an important constitutional text that applies to the president’s powers: the duty of “faithful execution.” That obligation already limits presidential discretion, and it gives Congress the power to apply “good faith” or “good cause” limits on the president’s removal authority.</p> </blockquote> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">And from later on:</p> <blockquote> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">[T]he proponents of the view that all agency heads serve at the pleasure of the president cite the clause in Article II that requires of the president that he “shall take care” of executing laws.</p> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">However, they ignore a crucial modifier in <a class="css-1g7m0tk" title="" href="https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-ii" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Article II</a> and its history: “The president shall take care that the laws be <em class="css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0">faithfully executed</em>.” The president also takes an oath to “<em class="css-2fg4z9 e1gzwzxm0">faithfully execute</em> the Office of President.” These clauses require good faith in executing presidential powers. The position that the president must have a completely unconstrained ability to say “you’re fired” to any agency head is wrong as a matter of the original public meaning of the Constitution.</p> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">The word “faithfully” is a signal that the framers wanted to limit the exercise of presidential powers to “good faith” reasons, bona fide purposes and fidelity to the public interest. &#8230;</p> </blockquote> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">Let&#8217;s assume they&#8217;re right about the President having a faithful execution duty.  (I think they probably are).  That does not  show that the President&#8217;s removal power can be limited to cases of (as the CFPB statute puts it) &#8220;inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.&#8221;</p> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">To the contrary, the President likely may wish to remove an agency head because of a policy disagreement, or simply because the President is not comfortable working with the person.  Such removals obviously would not violate the duty of faithful execution.  They are not situations in which the President is pursuing a private interest at the expense of the public interest.  The point of the removal is to allow the President to pursue the public interest (as the President sees it) without interference from an agency head with a different view of the matter.  Yet these removals would not be allowed by the CFPB statute (or other similar statutes).  Indeed, the central point of the statutory removal limitations is to create <em>independent </em>agencies whose policymaking the President cannot directly control.  And that&#8217;s what makes the limitations unconstitutional &#8212; they prevent the President from fully exercising the constitutional &#8220;executive Power.&#8221;</p> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">Professors Leib and Shugarman see the problem with their argument and try to deal with it toward the end of the article:</p> <blockquote> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">One might argue that “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” arguably goes beyond a constitutional good-faith requirement. A policy disagreement might be the basis of good-faith removal, but is it sufficient to meet the statutory terms of “inefficiency” or “neglect”?</p> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">Congress sometimes is permitted to draw the bounds of “faithfulness” more specifically. First, the history of “faithful execution” and <a class="css-1g7m0tk" title="" href="https://columbialawreview.org/content/article-ii-vests-the-executive-power-not-the-royal-prerogative/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">other parts of Article II</a> indicate general deference to Congress’s law-giving authority and judgment. Within reasonable limits, Congress can animate the concept of “faithful execution” as a limit on a president’s removal discretion. Second, everyone knows “good faith” is vague; allowing Congress room to be more specific or to tailor protections for particular offices is not a remarkable exception. Congress should have latitude to specify that “faithful execution” in some agencies dealing with especially sensitive matters or special expertise may require extra insulation, even from removal for policy disagreements, to guard against self-interested presidential pressure and manipulation. Third, the limits Congress creates for independent agencies still leave the president with broad discretion to remove officials, retaining the Constitution’s basic unitary structure.</p> </blockquote> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">I don&#8217;t think this makes any progress in salvaging their argument.  First, the good cause standard clearly (not just &#8220;arguably&#8221;) goes beyond the good faith requirement.  And if one were inclined to read the two in harmony, the result would be that the President could fire the agency heads for essentially any reason apart from a purely private one.  (This argument has been made, though I regard it as amending the statute to preserve its constitutionality rather than fairly interpreting the statute).</p> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">Second, I think the supposed &#8220;general deference to Congress’s law-giving authority and judgment&#8221; in separation of powers cases is largely an invention of the authors (the link goes to a contested academic piece by Julian Mortenson that isn&#8217;t really on point).  And when the Court has deferred (as in <em>Morrison v. Olson</em>), it&#8217;s been wrong.  Fundamentally, separation of powers means that one power should not be allowed to encroach upon another; deferring to Congress&#8217; encroachments is exactly the wrong way to do it.</p> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">Third, the suggestions that Congress &#8220;can animate the concept of &#8216;faithful execution'&#8221; or that we should &#8220;allow[ ] Congress room to be more specific or to tailor protections for particular offices&#8221; are but fancy ways of saying that Congress should be allowed to create limitations on the President&#8217;s executive power that aren&#8217;t in the Constitution.</p> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">In sum, the faithful execution limit on the President (which I endorse) is a very modest one.  It does not license Congress to shield agency heads from the President&#8217;s control and removal in situations of policy disagreement or personality clash between the President and the agency head.  Such removals are an aspect of faithful execution, not a violation of it.</p> <p class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">(Note: I joined an academic <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-7/109588/20190729121536622_19-7acSeparationOfPowersScholars.pdf">amicus brief</a> supporting the petition for writ of certiorari in the CFPB case.  For more discussion, see here: <a href="https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2019/09/the-battle-of-the-for-cause-directorsmichael-ramsey.html">The Battle of the &#8220;For Cause&#8221; Directors</a>).</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> Faithful Execution Clause Michael D. Ramsey Trump 2019 Deficit Estimated at Just a Hair Under $1 Trillion https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/trump-2019-deficit-estimated-at-just-a-hair-under-1-trillion/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:a31d458d-998f-233c-c719-34d133f0e6bc Wed, 09 Oct 2019 20:14:30 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/trump-2019-deficit-estimated-at-just-a-hair-under-1-trillion/" title="Trump 2019 Deficit Estimated at Just a Hair Under $1 Trillion" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/07/debt-tear-us-apart-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/debt-tear-us-apart-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/debt-tear-us-apart-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/debt-tear-us-apart-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/debt-tear-us-apart-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/debt-tear-us-apart-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>WASHINGTON (Oct. 9, 2019) &#8211; The budget deficit for fiscal year 2019 came in just a hair under $1 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office estimate. Despite nosing in just under the trillion-dollar mark, it was the biggest deficit since 2012. The budget shortfall has only eclipsed $1 trillion four times, all during the [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/trump-2019-deficit-estimated-at-just-a-hair-under-1-trillion/" title="Trump 2019 Deficit Estimated at Just a Hair Under $1 Trillion" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/07/debt-tear-us-apart-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/debt-tear-us-apart-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/debt-tear-us-apart-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/debt-tear-us-apart-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/debt-tear-us-apart-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/debt-tear-us-apart-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p><strong>WASHINGTON</strong> (Oct. 9, 2019) &#8211; The budget deficit for fiscal year 2019 came in just a hair under $1 trillion according to <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55699" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the Congressional Budget Office estimate</a>.<span id="more-33595"></span></p> <p>Despite nosing in just under the trillion-dollar mark, it was the biggest deficit since 2012. The budget shortfall has only eclipsed $1 trillion four times, all during the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.</p> <p>According to the CBO estimate, the deficit came in at $984 billion. That amounts to 4.7 percent of GDP, the highest percentage since 2012. It was the fourth consecutive year in which the deficit increased as a percentage of GDP. The debt-to-GDP ratio increased a hefty 26 percent over last year.</p> <p>The Treasury Department will release its official numbers later this month.</p> <p>The CBO called the federal government&#8217;s budget trajectory &#8220;unsustainable.&#8221;</p> <p>The pundits in the mainstream media tend to focus on the Trump tax cuts as the cause for the surging deficits, but revenues are actually up. Spending is the real culprit.</p> <p>Revenue was up 4 percent over fiscal 2018, according to the CBO estimates. Individual and payroll tax receipts increased by $107 billion. Corporate taxes were up $25 billion, a 12 percent increase over last year. Increases in tariff revenue also boosted total government receipts.</p> <p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-33604 aligncenter" src="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/fed-rev-cbo.png" alt="" width="600" height="435" srcset="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/fed-rev-cbo.png 600w, http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/fed-rev-cbo-480x348.png 480w" sizes="((min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px)) 480px, (min-width: 481px) 600px, 100vw" /></p> <p>Meanwhile, spending was up 8 percent last year, coming in at $4.45 trillion. There were significant increases in outlays for both domestic and military spending. Department of Defense spending rose by $47 billion (8 percent). The Department of Education spent $66 billion more last year. And the net interest on public debt was up by 14 percent.</p> <p><img class="size-full wp-image-33605 aligncenter" src="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/fed-spending-cbo.png" alt="" width="600" height="525" srcset="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/fed-spending-cbo.png 600w, http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/fed-spending-cbo-480x420.png 480w" sizes="((min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px)) 480px, (min-width: 481px) 600px, 100vw" /></p> <p>The spending will continue into the foreseeable future. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/bipartisan-fiscal-suicide-donald-and-nancy-team-up-for-more-spending-insanity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan budget deal</a> <strong>signed by President Trump </strong>over the summer suspended the borrowing limit for two years and will increase discretionary spending from $1.32 trillion in the current fiscal year to $1.37 trillion in fiscal 2020 and then raises it again to $1.375 trillion the year after that. The deal will allow for an increase in both domestic and military spending.</p> <p>Unsurprisingly, the national debt is spiraling upward. <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/05/trump-and-company-add-1-2-trillion-to-national-debt-in-fiscal-2019/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Trump and company increased the national debt by $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2019</a>, according to Treasury Department data. The gross national debt currently comes in at a staggering $22.7 trillion and climbing.</p> <p>To put that into perspective, last February, the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/15/full-speed-to-a-fiscal-cliff-national-debt-hits-22-trillion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">national debt topped $22 trillion</a>. When President Trump took office in January 2017, the debt was at $19.95 trillion. That represented a $2.06 trillion increase in the debt in just over two years. The borrowing pace continues to accelerate, with the Treasury set to borrow over three-quarters of a trillion more in just six months. (If you’re wondering how the debt can grow by a larger number than the annual deficit, economist <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/the-federal-budget-mess-is-even-worse-than-reported/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mark Brandly explains here</a>.)</p> <p>This kind of &#8220;economic stimulus&#8221; is a Keynesian dream. Trump claims he’s created the best economy in the history of America, but government spending at levels we would normally see during a recession have juiced the economy. The “great” economy Trump keeps boasting about is <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/01/smoke-and-mirrors-the-greatest-economy-is-built-on-spending-and-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">actually smoke and mirrors</a> sustained by federal spending and consumers borrowing themselves into record levels of debt.</p> <p>Republicans like to blame Democrats for big-spending and deficits, but the current spending spree is a bipartisan effort led by the GOP. Virtually nobody in Washington D.C. is doing anything to rein in this runaway train. It’s is quickly heading down the tracks toward a fiscal disaster.</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 Debt Economics budget deficit Donald Trump Economy government spending National Debt Mike Maharrey Federal Reserve’s Latest Bailouts More Proof Bad Times Ahead https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/federal-reserves-latest-bailouts-more-proof-bad-times-ahead/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:babd2197-c5f1-ca84-6d72-62fd9e324a23 Wed, 09 Oct 2019 20:04:08 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/federal-reserves-latest-bailouts-more-proof-bad-times-ahead/" title="Federal Reserve’s Latest Bailouts More Proof Bad Times Ahead" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/03/federal-reserve-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/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-1024x536.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-191x100.png 191w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-50x26.png 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-75x39.png 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a>by Ron Paul Since September 17, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has pumped billions of dollars into the repurchasing (repo) market, the first such intervention since 2009. The Fed has announced that it will continue to inject as much as 75 billion dollars a day into the repo market until November 4. The [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/federal-reserves-latest-bailouts-more-proof-bad-times-ahead/" title="Federal Reserve’s Latest Bailouts More Proof Bad Times Ahead" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/03/federal-reserve-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/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-1024x536.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-191x100.png 191w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-50x26.png 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-75x39.png 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><p><em>by <a href="http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/october/07/federal-reserve-s-latest-bailouts-more-proof-bad-times-ahead/">Ron Paul</a></em></p> <p>Since September 17, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has pumped billions of dollars into the repurchasing (repo) market, the first such intervention since 2009. The Fed has announced that it will continue to inject as much as 75 billion dollars a day into the repo market until November 4.</p> <p>The repo market provides a means for banks that are temporarily short of cash to obtain short-term (usually one day) loans from other banks. The Fed’s interventions were a response to a sudden cash shortage that caused interest rates for these short-term loans to climb to 10 percent, far above the Fed’s target rate.</p> <p>One of the factors blamed for the repo market’s cash shortage is the Federal Reserve’s sale of assets it acquired via the Quantitative Easing programs. Since launching its effort to “unwind” its balance sheet, the Fed had reduced its holdings by over 700 billion dollars. This seems like a large amount, but, given the Fed’s balance sheet was over four trillion dollars, the Fed only reduced its holdings by approximately 18 percent! If such a relatively small reduction in the Fed’s assets contributed to the cash shortage in the repo market, causing a panicked Fed to pump billions into the market, it is unlikely the Fed will be continuing selling assets and “normalizing” its balance sheet.</p> <p>Another factor contributing to the repo market’s cash shortage was a major sale of US Treasury securities. Sales of government securities leave less capital available for private sector investments, increasing interest rates. This “crowding out” effect provides one more justification for the Federal Reserve to pump more money into the markets.</p> <p>The crowding out effect is just one way federal debt increases pressure on the Fed to keep interest rates low. Increasing federal debt increases pressure on the Fed to maintain low interest rates to keep the federal government’s interest payments from reaching unsustainable levels. The over one trillion dollars (and rising) federal deficit is the major reason the Federal Reserve is likely to keep interest rates low or even adopt the insane policy of negative interest rates.</p> <p>The American people are not even allowed to know what banks benefited from the Fed’s intervention in the repo market, or what plans the Fed is making for future bailouts — even though the people will pay for those bailouts either through increased taxes, debt, or the Federal Reserve’s hidden inflation tax when the next crash occurs. Of course, the average people who will lose their savings and their jobs in the next crash will not be bailed out. This is one more reason why it is so important Congress takes the first steps toward changing monetary policy by passing Audit the Fed.</p> <p>The need for the Fed to shove billions into the repo market to keep that market’s interest rate near the Fed’s target shows the Fed is losing its power to control the price of money. The next crash will likely lead to the end of the fiat money system, along with the entire welfare-warfare state. Those of us who understand the Fed is the cause of, not the solution to, our problems must redouble our efforts to educate our fellow citizens on sound economics and the ideas of liberty. This way, we can create the critical mass necessary to force Congress to cut spending, repeal the legal tender laws to restore a free market in money, and audit, then end, the Fed.</p> <p><em>Copyright © 2019 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.</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 Economics Economy Federal Reserve interest rates QE TAC Daily Updates You’d Better Start Expecting Privacy Before it’s too Late https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/09/youd-better-start-expecting-privacy-before-its-too-late/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:d51db651-db06-b98f-5165-52a6833b6735 Wed, 09 Oct 2019 17:40:51 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/09/youd-better-start-expecting-privacy-before-its-too-late/" title="You&#8217;d Better Start Expecting Privacy Before it&#8217;s too Late" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b.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/surveillance-stencil-1280-b.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Those who support government surveillance often argue that we can&#8217;t really protest because we have &#8220;no expectation of privacy&#8221; in public spaces. Therefore, the police can engage in whatever type of dragnet surveillance they please. The problem with this view is technology has run far ahead of our traditional notions of public privacy. The &#8220;no [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/09/youd-better-start-expecting-privacy-before-its-too-late/" title="You&#8217;d Better Start Expecting Privacy Before it&#8217;s too Late" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b.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/surveillance-stencil-1280-b.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Those who support government surveillance often argue that we can&#8217;t really protest because we have &#8220;no expectation of privacy&#8221; in public spaces. Therefore, the police can engage in whatever type of dragnet surveillance they please. <span id="more-28801"></span></p> <p>The problem with this view is technology has run far ahead of our traditional notions of public privacy. The &#8220;no expectation&#8221; standard may have served us just fine in a world were surveillance meant an actual person following you with a camera snapping pictures. But to say we have no expectation of privacy in public takes on a different significance when the government can literally track every single person in a given space at the same time, store detailed data on each individual&#8217;s movements indefinitely, and analyze all of that information with the click of a button.</p> <p>With modern surveillance technology, government agents possess the capability to determine where you&#8217;ve been, what you&#8217;ve been doing, who you&#8217;ve communicated with, and what you&#8217;ve said during virtually every second of every day. And with the advent of artificial intelligence, cops can even predict where you might go next.</p> <p>We live in an Orwellian world and our notions of privacy have not evolved to confront it.</p> <p>Even that old &#8220;you have no expectation of privacy in public&#8221; isn&#8217;t absolute. When you say that you have no expectation of privacy, you generally mean that you can&#8217;t expect a person not to notice you, to take your picture or note your comings and goings. But even under this standard, a fine line exists.</p> <p>We call it stalking.</p> <p>Although you have no &#8220;expectation of privacy&#8221; I can&#8217;t stalk you. If I follow you around the park every time you show up and take pictures of your daughter, you would have grounds for action against me. Just because you don&#8217;t have an expectation of privacy doesn&#8217;t mean I can harass you or track your movements at will. At some point, I would cross the line to stalking.</p> <p>Government agents operate under even more strict standards. We actually <em>do</em> expect that the government can&#8217;t target us for surveillance without probable cause. The default position is privacy. There must be a reason to pierce that shield &#8211;  and that should hold true whether we&#8217;re in our house, our car or simply walking down the street.</p> <p>Modern surveillance puts every individual under constant scrutiny. As just one example, a camera system that was deployed to surveil a free speech rally in Berkeley that was equipped with AI that can read lips. As one activist put it, &#8220;All individuals in, at, near or by the park or other parts of downtown Berkeley on August 5, 2018, should assume their identities are known to the Trump Administration and the FBI.&#8221;</p> <p>This type of government power should concern all of us and we shouldn&#8217;t just brush it aside with glib statements about &#8220;no expectations of privacy&#8221; and the trite assurances that you&#8217;ll be fine if you &#8220;have nothing to hide.&#8221; Never forget that the government has a far different definition of &#8220;a dangerous person&#8221; than you do. Basically, you&#8217;re dangerous if you challenge government authority or power. Whether you&#8217;re a &#8220;defender of free speech&#8221; or you&#8217;re &#8220;resisting&#8221; Trump, you may indeed have &#8220;something to hide.&#8221;</p> <p>People have become far too lackadaisical about the power of the surveillance state that is already upon us. But I often feel like I&#8217;m pretty much spitting into the wind. Most people don&#8217;t seem to care. Well, I think you&#8217;d better state caring. And you&#8217;d better start expecting privacy before it&#8217;s too late. Because when it&#8217;s too late, it&#8217;s too late.</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> Surveillance Privacy Mike Maharrey Bump Stocks: Will the People Nullify the Ban? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/bump-stocks-will-the-people-nullify-the-ban/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:37282603-098e-ba21-d56f-446a31e63bc1 Wed, 09 Oct 2019 17:21:38 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/bump-stocks-will-the-people-nullify-the-ban/" title="Bump Stocks: Will the People Nullify the Ban?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/path-100919.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/2019/10/path-100919.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100919-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100919-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100919-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100919-1080x608.jpg 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100919-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100919-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>When the ATF published the final rule banning bump stocks in Dec. 2018, estimates showed there were as many as 500,000 in existence. Now, after a freedom of information act filed by the Washington Times, we have the first details of how many have been turned in to the feds. And it doesn&#8217;t look good [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/bump-stocks-will-the-people-nullify-the-ban/" title="Bump Stocks: Will the People Nullify the Ban?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/path-100919.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/2019/10/path-100919.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100919-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100919-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100919-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100919-1080x608.jpg 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100919-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100919-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>When the ATF published the final rule banning bump stocks in Dec. 2018, estimates showed there were as many as 500,000 in existence. Now, after a freedom of information act filed by the Washington Times, we have the first details of how many have been turned in to the feds. And it doesn&#8217;t look good for the government, either. Is this the beginning of a widespread nullification effort? Only time will tell.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: October 9, 2019<span id="more-33607"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/a98QnNmawgs?start=49" 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="spotify: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://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/politics/trump-bump-stock-ban.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Trump Administration Is Set to Ban Bump Stock Devices on Guns</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/03/29/2018-06292/bump-stock-type-devices" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Federal Register: Bump-Stock-Type Devices</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/18/the-unconstitutional-bump-stock-ban-and-what-to-do-about-it/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Unconstitutional Bump Stock Ban and What to do About it</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/6/bump-stock-ban-failure-omen-gun-buyback-plan/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Bump stock ban&#8217;s flop a bad omen for Democrats&#8217; gun buyback plan</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">James Madison: Four Steps to Stop Federal Programs</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/e90cdda7-ae67-41e4-b6d9-d5c39ce92d39" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/TEQBlep4qiZA/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/492311105" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1kvKpRljlbmJE" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+gQP3tuhWg" 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 Path to Liberty Popular Right to Keep and Bear Arms bump stock ban federalist Federalist 46 James Madison Nullification Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 17:22 When the ATF published the final rule banning bump stocks in Dec. 2018, estimates showed there were as many as 500,000 in existence. Now, after a freedom of information act filed by the Washington Times, we have the first details of how many have been ... When the ATF published the final rule banning bump stocks in Dec. 2018, estimates showed there were as many as 500,000 in existence. Now, after a freedom of information act filed by the Washington Times, we have the first details of how many have been turned in to the feds. And it doesn’t look good […] Signed as Law: California Bans Facial Recognition on Police Body Cameras https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/signed-as-law-california-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d4dcef80-2458-0b91-218e-89e0ccb90a1c Wed, 09 Oct 2019 16:00:54 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/signed-as-law-california-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" title="Signed as Law: California Bans Facial Recognition on Police Body Cameras" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019.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.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-768x403.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1024x537.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1080x566.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a>SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Oct. 9, 2019) – Yesterday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law that bans police from using facial recognition and biometric scanners with body-worn cameras for the next three years. The law will not only help protect privacy in California, but it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/signed-as-law-california-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" title="Signed as Law: California Bans Facial Recognition on Police Body Cameras" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019.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.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-768x403.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1024x537.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/07/facial-recognition-general-july-2019-1080x566.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><p><strong>SACRAMENTO</strong>, Calif. (Oct. 9, 2019) – Yesterday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law that bans police from using facial recognition and biometric scanners with body-worn cameras for the next three years. The law will not only help protect privacy in California, but it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-33602"></span></p> <p>Assm. Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) introduced Assembly Bill 1215 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB1215/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">AB1215</a>) on Feb. 21. The new law prohibits a law enforcement agency or law enforcement official from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer camera.</p> <p>Before the final Senate vote, that chamber amended the bill twice to make the provisions temporary. With the initial amendment, the law would have been automatically repealed on Jan. 1, 2027. A second amendment whittled that backed to 2023. So in effect, AB1215 institutes a 3-year ban on facial recognition combined with body-worn cameras.</p> <p>On May 9, the Assembly approved the measure by a <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1215/id/862238" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">vote of 45-17</a>. The Senate passed AB1215 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1215/id/891666" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a 22-15 vote</a> over heavy opposition from police around the state. On Sept. 12, the Assembly concurred with the Senate amendment by <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1215/id/893587" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a 47-21 margin</a>. Only three Republicans in both the Assembly and the Senate voted yes on AB1215. With Gov. Newsom’s signature, the new law goes into effect on Jan. 1.</p> <p>“Without my bill, face recognition technology can subject law-abiding citizens to perpetual police line-ups, as their every movement is tracked without consent. Its use, if left unchecked, undermines public trust in government institutions and unduly intrudes on one’s constitutional right to privacy. AB 1215 is an important civil rights measure that will prevent exploitation of vulnerable communities,” Ting wrote in a statement on his website.</p> <p>Passage of this bill takes an important step forward but much work remains. When the provisions of the law sunset in three years, things will return to the status quo &#8211; which will mean police using facial recognition on body-cam footage whenever they please with no restrictions or oversight. It&#8217;s imperative to continue pushing legislators to make these restrictions permanent.</p> <p>Powerful police lobbies opposed passage of the bill. <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/16/california-could-limit-how-police-use-facial-recognition-technology/1456448001/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According to <em>USA Today</em></a>, no law enforcement agency in California currently uses facial recognition with their body-worn cameras, but police opposed the measure because “a valuable tool could be lost.” Detective Lou Turriaga, director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League played the public safety card in opposing the bill.</p> <p>“Facial recognition could be a valuable tool for us, helping identify felons or even abducted children, “he said. “I understand trying to seek a balance between civil liberties and law enforcement, but a wholesale ban doesn’t help us protect anybody. Why remove that tool from law enforcement? It just doesn’t make sense.”</p> <p>California Police Chiefs Association also publicly opposed the measure.</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>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of AB1215 would eliminate one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</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> Facial Recognition State Bills AB1215 California facial recognition Fourth Amendment Privacy surveillance Mike Maharrey Can the Supreme Court Review Impeachments? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/can-the-supreme-court-review-impeachments/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:cec51bbb-96a6-6587-3207-51a285637785 Tue, 08 Oct 2019 17:19:47 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/can-the-supreme-court-review-impeachments/" title="Can the Supreme Court Review Impeachments?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/03/court-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/2019/03/court-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/court-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/court-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/court-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/court-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>At The Hill, Alan Dershowitz answers yes: Supreme Court could overrule an unconstitutional impeachment.  From the beginning: President Trump has said that if the House were to impeach him despite his not having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” he might seek review of such an unconstitutional action in the Supreme Court. On April 24, he tweeted that if “the [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/can-the-supreme-court-review-impeachments/" title="Can the Supreme Court Review Impeachments?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/03/court-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/2019/03/court-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/court-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/court-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/court-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/court-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>At <em>The Hill</em>, Alan Dershowitz answers yes: <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/446394-dershowitz-supreme-court-could-overrule-an-unconstitutional-impeachment">Supreme Court could overrule an unconstitutional impeachment</a>.  From the beginning:</p> <blockquote><p>President Trump has said that if the House were to impeach him despite his not having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” he might seek review of such an unconstitutional action in the Supreme Court. On April 24, <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1121023509029892096" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">he tweeted</a> that if “the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only are there no &#8216;High Crimes and Misdemeanors,&#8217; there are no Crimes by me at all.”</p> <p>&#8230;</p> <p>Commentators have accused Trump of not understanding the way impeachment works and have stated quite categorically that the courts have no constitutional role to play in what is solely a congressional and political process. Time magazine declared in a headline “<a href="https://time.com/5577407/donald-trump-impeachment-supreme-court/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">That’s Not How It Works</a>,” and Vox called the president’s argument “<a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/5/30/18645590/trump-impeachment-mueller-confusion" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">profoundly confused</a>.”</p> <p>Scholars also echoed the derision. The influential legal blog Lawfare wrote confidently that “<a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-has-no-role-impeachment" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Supreme Court Has No Role in Impeachment</a>,” and my friend and colleague Larry Tribe, an eminent constitutional law scholar, called Trump’s argument simply “<a href="https://time.com/5577407/donald-trump-impeachment-supreme-court/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">idiocy</a>,” explaining that “the court is very good at slapping down attempts to drag things out by bringing it into a dispute where it has no jurisdiction.”</p> <p>Not so fast. Our nonlawyer president may be closer to the truth than his lawyer critics. &#8230;</p></blockquote> <p>And from later on:</p> <blockquote><p>The president is not above the law, but neither is Congress, whose members take an oath to support, not subvert, the Constitution. And that Constitution does not authorize impeachment for anything short of high crimes and misdemeanors.</p> <p>Were Congress to try to impeach and remove a president without alleging and proving any such crime, and were the president to refuse to leave office on the ground that Congress had acted unconstitutionally, there would indeed be such a constitutional crisis. And Supreme Court precedent going back to <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Marbury v. Madison</a> empowers the justices to resolve conflicts between the executive and legislative branches by applying the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.</p></blockquote> <p>From an originalist perspective, I agree.  (At least in part.)</p> <p>The Constitution does not permit impeachment for anything other than high crimes and misdemeanors.  Let&#8217;s suppose that the House impeaches the President for something he claims is not a high crime or misdemeanor under the original meaning of those words.  (I&#8217;m assuming that the question is whether conduct X is a high crime or misdemeanor, not whether the President committed conduct X).  Is this the type of question a court ordinarily could hear?  Professor Dershowitz says yes, and I agree.  It&#8217;s a pure (although perhaps difficult) legal question of the meaning of the Constitution&#8217;s text.  A key case is the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/566/189/"><em>Zivotofsky v. Clinton</em></a>, involving the scope of the President&#8217;s recognition power.  The President objected that the case was a so-called &#8220;political question&#8221; and thus inappropriate from judicial review. (This is also the argument scholars are making against the idea of judicial review of impeachments).  But the Court in Zivotofsky rejected the political question claim, saying that since the case involved a pure legal question of the meaning of the Constitution&#8217;s text (there, the scope of the President&#8217;s power to receive ambassadors), it was something the courts could decide.  And I agree with Professor Dershowitz that this follows from <em>Marbury v. Madison</em> and the courts&#8217; Article III &#8220;judicial Power&#8221; to say what the law is.</p> <p>The counterargument (made in the posts linked above) is that the Constitution&#8217;s text gives Congress non-reviewable power over impeachments (in a way that it doesn&#8217;t give non-reviewable power over other legal questions, like the one in Zivotofsky, to the other branches).  Specifically, Article I, Section 2 says that the House &#8220;shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.&#8221;  I do think this gives the House substantial non-reviewable discretion over many aspects of impeachment (more on that below).  But deciding the meaning of the constitutional phrase &#8220;high Crimes and Misdemeanors&#8221; is not part of the &#8220;Power of Impeachment.&#8221;  It is instead a prerequisite to the exercise of the power of impeachment.  And it is a pure question of law, not a question of the exercise of discretion committed to the House.</p> <p>In contrast, much of the impeachment process does involve the exercise of the House&#8217;s discretion.  Whether to initiate impeachment proceedings, how to conduct the proceedings, and what result to reach are all matters for the House to decide, employing the discretion committed to the House by Article I, Section 2.  In particular &#8212; and here I disagree with Professor Dershowitz and the President &#8212; the House has discretion to decide whether the facts establish that the President has committed an impeachable offense.  That is, if the question is not whether conduct X is a high crime or misdemeanor but rather whether the President has committed conduct X, I think that is a political question committed to the House and is not reviewable by the courts.  A key point of the impeachment clause is to shift the adjudicatory aspects of the impeachment process to the political branches.</p> <p>Again, this distinction comes from <em>Marbury</em>, and I think it reflects the correct original power of the courts conveyed by Article III to say what the law is, but not to interfere with the exercise of discretion committed to the political branches.  In the part of  <em>Marbury</em> that is the foundation of the political question doctrine, Chief Justice Marshall explained that the courts could not review exercises of discretion by the executive branch.  Whether the executive made the correct answer or not, he was answerable in his political capacity to the people, not to the courts.  But where the question is the meaning of a law (including the Constitution), that matter is committed to the courts and does not involve any discretion in the executive.</p> <p>For what it&#8217;s worth, I&#8217;ve made a closely parallel argument regarding the justiciability of the President&#8217;s war power in this article: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3120648">War Powers Litigation after </a><em><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3120648">Zivotofsky v. Clinton</a>.  </em>My argument there is that courts can review war powers questions that are pure questions of law, such as the scope of the declare war clause, but should not review questions regarding the conduct of war that involve matters of presidential discretion.</p> <p>The impeachment context involves actions of Congress rather than actions of the President, but the principle should be the same.  If the question is what the Constitution&#8217;s text means, the courts have the constitutional power to answer it.</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> Court Cases Impeachment Judiciary Supreme court Zivotofsky v. Clinton Michael D. Ramsey A Dose of Their Own Bitter Medicine https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/a-dose-of-their-own-bitter-medicine/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:55bc00ee-0f80-c7df-5c78-58a0d05b23da Tue, 08 Oct 2019 11:11:53 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/a-dose-of-their-own-bitter-medicine/" title="A Dose of Their Own Bitter Medicine" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/surprised-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/2019/10/surprised-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/surprised-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/surprised-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/surprised-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/surprised-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/surprised-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/surprised-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Even people who favor big government get upset when the government expands its own power in ways they don&#8217;t like. One of the first articles I wrote for the Constitution 101 series was titled &#8220;Living and Breathing Is the Same as Dead.&#8221; It makes the fundamental point that if the government can interpret and apply [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/a-dose-of-their-own-bitter-medicine/" title="A Dose of Their Own Bitter Medicine" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/surprised-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/2019/10/surprised-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/surprised-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/surprised-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/surprised-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/surprised-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/surprised-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/surprised-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Even people who favor big government get upset when the government expands its own power in ways they don&#8217;t like.<span id="more-33558"></span></p> <p>One of the first articles I wrote for the Constitution 101 series was titled &#8220;<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/07/19/constitution-101-living-and-breathing-is-the-same-as-dead/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Living and Breathing Is the Same as Dead</a>.&#8221; It makes the fundamental point that if the government can interpret and apply the Constitution in such a way that it expands its own power, the Constitution itself becomes meaningless. You can&#8217;t have &#8220;rule of law&#8221; when the &#8220;rule of law&#8221; is subject to reinterpretation at the whim of government judges, bureaucrats and elected officials. A constitution must mean what it was intended to mean when ratified, or it&#8217;s really pointless to have one.</p> <p>Big government proponents (on both the left and the right) have pushed this notion of a &#8220;living breathing&#8221; Constitution for decades in order to further their own policy agendas. Well, some folks in Florida recently got a nasty dose of their own medicine when a state judge essentially said city governments get to interpret statutes as they see fit.</p> <p>While this wasn&#8217;t a constitutional issue, it illustrates the danger of &#8220;living breathing law.&#8221; In this episode of <em>Thoughts from Maharrey Head</em>, I talk about it.</p> <p><strong>LISTEN</strong></p> <p><iframe width="100%" height="166" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" allow="autoplay" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/688483249&#038;color=%23ff5500&#038;auto_play=false&#038;hide_related=false&#038;show_comments=true&#038;show_user=true&#038;show_reposts=false&#038;show_teaser=true"></iframe></p> <p><em>Thoughts from Maharrey Head</em> focuses on constitutional issues and political decentralization. When you’re finished listening, you’ll be 10 minutes closer to freedom!</p> <p>You can subscribe to <em>Thoughts from Maharrey Head</em> for free on iTunes. Just click <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/michael-maharrey/id978999488?mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HERE</a>.</p> <p><strong>SHOW NOTES AND LINKS</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.michaelmaharrey.com/constitution-101-constitutional-interpretation-living-and-breathing-is-dead-1358/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Constitutional Interpretation – Living and Breathing is Dead</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.michaelmaharrey.com/the-power-of-no/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Free E-Book: The Power of No!: The Historical and Constitutional Basis for State Nullification</a></p> <p><a title="The Evolution of Sovereignty in American Political Thought – Part 1" href="https://www.michaelmaharrey.com/the-evolution-of-sovereignty-in-american-political-thought-part-1-2127/" rel="bookmark">The Evolution of Sovereignty in American Political Thought – Part 1</a></p> <p><a title="The Evolution of Sovereignty in American Political Thought: States’ Rights" href="https://www.michaelmaharrey.com/the-evolution-of-sovereignty-in-american-political-thought-states-rights-2210/" rel="bookmark">The Evolution of Sovereignty in American Political Thought: States’ Rights</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 Thoughts from Maharrey Head Big Government Constitution James Madison Mike Maharrey California vs DC on Federal Lands: They’re Both Wrong under the Constitution https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/california-vs-dc-on-federal-lands-theyre-both-wrong-under-the-constitution/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:67503adc-cdbe-6820-411f-09684a909cc3 Mon, 07 Oct 2019 17:43:36 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/california-vs-dc-on-federal-lands-theyre-both-wrong-under-the-constitution/" title="California vs DC on Federal Lands: They&#8217;re Both Wrong under the Constitution" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/path-100719.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/2019/10/path-100719.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100719-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100719-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100719-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100719-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100719-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100719-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>When Barack Obama was president, anytime you’d make the constitutional case against feds owning massive amounts of land, liberals would attack you as racist, backwards, neoconfederate &#8211; or something. And now it’s coming back to bite them. Last Friday, Donald Trump announced the latest federal plans regarding over 700,000 acres in California. Don&#8217;t be surprised, [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/california-vs-dc-on-federal-lands-theyre-both-wrong-under-the-constitution/" title="California vs DC on Federal Lands: They&#8217;re Both Wrong under the Constitution" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/path-100719.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/2019/10/path-100719.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100719-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100719-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100719-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100719-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100719-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-100719-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>When Barack Obama was president, anytime you’d make the constitutional case against feds owning massive amounts of land, liberals would attack you as racist, backwards, neoconfederate &#8211; or something. And now it’s coming back to bite them. Last Friday, Donald Trump announced the latest federal plans regarding over 700,000 acres in California. Don&#8217;t be surprised, they&#8217;re all wrong. </p> <p>Path to Liberty: October 7, 2019<span id="more-33589"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/jA3WjkGP6fU?start=55" 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="spotify: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://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california-oil/trump-administration-opens-up-drilling-on-federal-land-in-california-idUSKBN1WJ2EX" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Trump administration opens up drilling on federal land in California</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-09/california-lawmakers-block-trump-oil-drilling-fracking" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">California lawmakers challenge Trump’s bid to expand oil drilling and fracking statewide</a></p> <p><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Federal land ownership by state</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/02/05/federally-administered-lands-the-original-intent/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Federally Administered Lands: The Original Intent</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/02/10/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-federal-land-ownership/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">What Does the Constitution Say About Federal Land Ownership?</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZuhRXRkrQrNR/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/491473970" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1PlJQVdBjbdxE" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+B_D7DP2WR" 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 Cailfornia Donald Trump Enclave Clause Environment federal land oil drilling Property Clause Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 36:14 When Barack Obama was president, anytime you’d make the constitutional case against feds owning massive amounts of land, liberals would attack you as racist, backwards, neoconfederate – or something. And now it’s coming back to bite them. Last Friday, When Barack Obama was president, anytime you’d make the constitutional case against feds owning massive amounts of land, liberals would attack you as racist, backwards, neoconfederate – or something. And now it’s coming back to bite them. Last Friday, Donald Trump announced the latest federal plans regarding over 700,000 acres in California. Don’t be surprised, […] The Founders Warned Us About the Fed https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/07/the-founders-warned-us-about-the-fed/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:472cf30c-7020-b10b-e1be-86af2ffc7744 Mon, 07 Oct 2019 11:24:43 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/07/the-founders-warned-us-about-the-fed/" title="The Founders Warned Us About the Fed" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-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/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200.png 1200w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-300x157.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-768x402.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-1024x536.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-1080x565.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-980x513.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-480x251.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a>The Federal Reserve just lowered interest rates for the second time this year and announced more quantitative easing by injecting even more U.S. dollars into the market. The days of cheap money will soon come to an end, and I fear that many people won&#8217;t realize what&#8217;s happening until the rug is pulled out from [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/07/the-founders-warned-us-about-the-fed/" title="The Founders Warned Us About the Fed" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-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/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200.png 1200w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-300x157.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-768x402.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-1024x536.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-1080x565.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-980x513.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/federal-reserve-1200-480x251.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><p dir="ltr">The Federal Reserve just <a title="This external link will open in a new window" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/fed-loses-control-of-its-own-interest-rate-on-day-of-big-decision-this-just-doesnt-look-good.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">lowered interest rates</a> for the second time this year and announced more quantitative easing by injecting even more U.S. dollars into the market. The days of cheap money will soon come to an end, and I fear that many people won&#8217;t realize what&#8217;s happening until the rug is pulled out from under them.<span id="more-28789"></span></p> <p dir="ltr">As economist Henry Hazlitt <a title="This external link will open in a new window" href="https://fee.org/articles/inflation-and-interest-rates/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrote</a>, the practices of the Fed distort the real-world market indicators of cost, future prices, investments and production. A recent <a title="This external link will open in a new window" href="https://files.constantcontact.com/668faa28001/2f0b98b4-3c7e-47e3-ade5-9887542aa300.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study</a> from the National Association for Business Economics showed that 72 percent of economists now predict that a recession will occur between 2020 and the end of 2021. Some have even warned that the U.S. is on the brink of the <a title="This external link will open in a new window" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/15/ron-paul-us-interest-rates-are-going-negative.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">biggest bubble</a> in world history — not just a correction of a business cycle or another recession, but a complete collapse of the U.S. dollar.</p> <p dir="ltr">Yet the dangers of centralized banking are not new knowledge. For centuries, people (including many of our founding fathers) have tried to warn us of the numerous threats posed by institutions like the Federal Reserve.</p> <p dir="ltr">Today, it’s understood by many that the recklessness of the Fed allowed for the subprime mortgages that caused the Great Recession of 2008. With over $22 trillion in debt, $120 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and, soon, an all-time high <a title="This external link will open in a new window" href="https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">debt-to-GDP ratio</a> (comparable to World War II levels), however, it’s not overstating it to say that the Fed-facilitated out-of-control federal government spending constitutes the greatest threat to the American way of life in history.</p> <p dir="ltr">To understand the full extent of the debt and the destruction of the dollar, it&#8217;s essential to realize that paper money has a history of being printed as bills of credit to finance runaway government. In 1775, the Founders attempted to use paper money without gold or silver backing, and they found that the inflation robbed them of any value. In 1788, Thomas Jefferson wrote, &#8220;Paper is poverty. It is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.&#8221;</p> <p dir="ltr">The Coinage Act of 1792 then set specific ratios for gold and silver coinage, placing gold and silver in control rather than a central bank. This lasted until the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which allowed for the formation of the Federal Reserve System just two decades before Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt started to come after private ownership of gold and silver in the 1930s. In 1944, the Bretton Woods system made the U.S. dollar the reserve currency of the world, when it was still partially backed by gold and silver.</p> <p dir="ltr">Finally, in 1971, the Nixon Administration suspended wages, issued price controls, and canceled dollar-to-gold convertibility, <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/15/today-in-history-nixon-slams-shut-the-gold-window/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">completing the final step in ending the “gold standard.”</a> This gave the central government planners — and the federal reserve — the power to print money without restraint. This is how the national debt has been able to reach the <a title="This external link will open in a new window" href="https://www.usdebtclock.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">levels</a> that it has. The only thing backing the U.S. dollar today is public debt.</p> <p dir="ltr">Remember when Coke was a nickel? In 1913 (the year the Fed was founded) a bottle of Coke cost five cents. Today, a bottle of Coca-Cola costs an average of $1.79. While there are many factors (like supply and demand, cost of goods, etc.) that help set prices, <a title="This external link will open in a new window" href="http://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1913?amount=0.05" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">inflation</a> plays a critical part. At an average inflation rate of 3.12 percent annually, inflation alone accounts for $1.30 of the actual cost of Coke.</p> <p dir="ltr">The addition of more U.S. dollars doesn&#8217;t mean that anyone is more wealthy; in fact, it means that the dollars you have are worth less. You will need a higher amount of dollars to buy the same goods and services. Hence, saving inflated dollars, in many cases, is losing value. Those who save money are being robbed.</p> <p dir="ltr">With the continued decline of the dollar, there could also be <a title="This external link will open in a new window" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/worst-hyperinflation-episodes-in-history-2013-9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">hyperinflation</a> on an unprecedented scale. Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson warned that &#8220;the greatest threat to be feared&#8221; was the &#8220;public curse&#8221; of &#8220;public debt”, and that &#8220;banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.&#8221; The founding fathers understood the dangers of centralized manipulation of the money supply, the hidden taxation of inflation, and the control of buying power. They understood that gold and silver are real money.</p> <p dir="ltr">Furthermore, if we look at the history of money, we can see that precious metals, mainly gold and silver, have been used for coinage for over 2600 years; in one way or another, gold and silver have been used by people for over 6000 years.</p> <p dir="ltr">American revolutionary leader Christopher Gadsden once said in Sept. 1764 that “The evils attending a wanton exercise of power, in some of the colonies, by issuing a redundancy of paper currency, has always been avoided by this province, by a proper attention to the dangerous consequences of such a practice, and the fatal influence it must have upon public credit.&#8221;</p> <p dir="ltr">People across the U.S. should heed his warnings by allowing gold and silver to be used as legal tender once again. Some states like <a title="This external link will open in a new window" href="https://www.soundmoneydefense.org/state-legal-tender-movement" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Utah</a> have done just that. While this won&#8217;t stop the Federal Reserve’s destruction of the dollar, it will allow people to convert dollars to sound money before a collapse. Sound money, like gold and silver, acts as a check and balance on big government, a hedge against inflation, and a way to combat manipulation by the Fed.</p> <p dir="ltr">This is exactly why, in my home state, I will soon be filing the “2020 South Carolina Sound Money Bill”, allowing South Carolinians to use gold and silver as legal tender. I will also introduce legislation to exempt gold and silver from capital gains tax, both of which are already exempt from sales tax in South Carolina. We the People can restore sound money by using the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.</p> <p dir="ltr">It is my hope that, with the success of these bills, other policymakers elsewhere will become inspired to lead by example on this vital issue as well. The key to protecting the American way of life from the federal reserve’s obliteration of our currency rests with the legislatures, but we must heed the lessons of history now.</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 central-banking Government Spending sound money Stewart Jones Private Companies Partnering with Cops to Track Your License Plate https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/private-companies-partnering-with-cops-to-track-your-license-plate/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:1b045219-d72c-0432-dba4-4e0da1871fec Mon, 07 Oct 2019 11:01:11 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/private-companies-partnering-with-cops-to-track-your-license-plate/" title="Private Companies Partnering with Cops to Track Your License Plate" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-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/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Three major automatic license plate reader (ALPR) companies have created a mind-boggling database of 14 billion license plates that allows law enforcement to track anyone in real-time. The Digital Recognition Network (DRN) has a database of over 8 billion license plates and boasts about sending customers (law enforcement) live vehicle location alerts. &#8220;If you think there is [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/private-companies-partnering-with-cops-to-track-your-license-plate/" title="Private Companies Partnering with Cops to Track Your License Plate" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-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/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/traffic-chicago-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Three major automatic license plate reader (ALPR) companies have created a mind-boggling database of 14 billion license plates that allows law enforcement to track anyone in real-time.<span id="more-33570"></span></p> <p>The Digital Recognition Network (DRN) has a database of over 8 billion license plates and <a href="https://drndata.com/products/live-alerts/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">boasts</a> about sending customers (law enforcement) live vehicle location alerts.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;If you think there is nothing you can do to automatically detect vehicles, think again. DRN’s Live Alerts, part of the DRNsights for Insurance solution, uses vehicle location data gathered from over 8 billion nationwide sightings plus the 160,000 million gathered each month, to provide alerts when vehicles are detected.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Vigilant Solutions&#8217; <a href="https://www.vigilantsolutions.com/products/license-plate-recognition-lpr/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">webpage</a> has a database of over 5 billion license plates and collects a little less than DRN daily.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;We are the only ALPR provider that can offer over 5 billion nationwide detections and over 150 million more added monthly.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Vigilant Solutions also offers customers (law enforcement) a <a href="https://www.vigilantsolutions.com/did-you-know-mobile-hit-hunter-feature/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">&#8220;Mobile Hit Hunter&#8221;</a> or hotlist feature, that tracks vehicles in real-time.</p> <p>As <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/massive-30-state-real-time-alpr-database-about-to-go-live/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">I reported last month</a>, Rekor Systems has a massive 30 state real-time license plate database that collects 150 million license plates every month.</p> <p>But Rekor Systems does something the other ALPR companies do not. They can send law enforcement <a href="https://rekorsystems.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">detailed descriptions</a> of any vehicle in real-time.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Our software upgrades any IP, traffic, or surveillance camera into a vehicle recognition solution that can be used for realtime alerting of license plates. Not only does the software read a license plate number, but it also provides vehicle type, make, and color, something the competitors cannot do.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Rekor Systems, which is also being used by <a href="https://www.accesswire.com/551380/Rekor-Announces-Upgrade-to-Industry-Leading-OpenALPR-Vehicle-Recognition-Software" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">69 countries</a>, likely has a database of billions of people&#8217;s license plates.</p> <p>Combined, these three companies alone have easily collected more than 14 billion license plates.</p> <p>But why stop there? There must be other ALPR companies adding to this massive police license plate database, right?</p> <p>Another ALPR company called, PlateSmart Technologies sends all their license plate data to <a href="https://www.platesmart.com/about-platesmart/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fusion Centers</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Our goal is to create a collaborative network for secure data sharing for fusion centers, law enforcement, and government while adhering to ALPR industry best practices and provide a means of transparency.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>And Genetec&#8217;s <a href="https://www.genetec.com/solutions/all-products/autovu" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">&#8220;AutoVU&#8221;</a> automatic license plate readers lets customers (law enforcement) create secret hotlists.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;AutoVu lets you manage all of your hotlists from one system and decide whether to share plate reads or hits beyond your organizational boundaries. Advanced features, including Federation and <b>covert hotlists, empower your organization to enlist the aid of other AutoVu systems without compromising the safety or privacy of their staff and clients.</b>&#8220;</p></blockquote> <p><a href="https://www.flocksafety.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Flock Safety</a>, an ALPR company that makes its money by turning neighborhoods into a virtual police state, wants <a href="https://www.flocksafety.com/police" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">license plate readers on every street</a>.</p> <p>Recently residents of Jersey Village, Texas put &#8220;a camera on every street to create a virtual gate&#8221; that resulted in Flock Safety catching two vehicles on the NCIC Hot List.&#8221;</p> <p>There are many smaller ALPR companies that contribute to a much larger police license plate database in the U.S., but hopefully, you get the idea. (To find more APLR companies click <a href="https://ipvm.com/reports/lpr-anpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a> &amp; <a href="https://repo.buzz/auto-delinquency/alpr-companies/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>.)</p> <p>Unless something is done to stop tracking everyone&#8217;s license plates soon, we can expect the police database to grow to 20 BILLION in a few years.</p> <div class="article-content entry-content"> <p>What will it take for Americans to wake up and realize that license plate tracking is not about public safety? It is about creating a detailed picture of everyone&#8217;s travels.</p> <p><em>Editors Note: This <a href="https://www.eff.org/cases/automated-license-plate-readers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ALPR</a> data will also likely ends up in federal databases. 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">Wall Street Journal</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. 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. This is why it is imperative to limit state and local police access to license plate data. </em></p> </div> <p>This article was <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2019/10/14-billion-police-license-plate.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">originally published at Massprivatei</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> License Plate Tracking ALPR Digital Recognition Network PlateSmart Technologies Rekor Systems surveillance Vigilant Solutions jprivate Today in History: James Wilson’s State House Yard Speech https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/today-in-history-james-wilsons-state-house-yard-speech/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:a171b070-c453-728c-993c-3563f1c8424e Sun, 06 Oct 2019 22:07:29 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/today-in-history-james-wilsons-state-house-yard-speech/" title="Today in History: James Wilson&#8217;s State House Yard Speech" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-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/2019/10/james-wilson-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Today in 1787, James Wilson made his famous “State House Yard Speech” in support of the Constitution in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania was the first true test for the ratification struggle, and Wilson was asked to explain what the Constitution did and respond to some of the criticisms raised against it. There was open hostility toward the [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/today-in-history-james-wilsons-state-house-yard-speech/" title="Today in History: James Wilson&#8217;s State House Yard Speech" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-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/2019/10/james-wilson-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/james-wilson-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Today in 1787, James Wilson made his famous “<a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/state-house-speech/">State House Yard Speech</a>” in support of the Constitution in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania was the first true test for the ratification struggle, and Wilson was asked to explain what the Constitution did and respond to some of the criticisms raised against it.<span id="more-33592"></span></p> <p>There was open hostility toward the Constitution because it lacked a bill of rights, which would have the purpose of listing areas in which the government could never venture. Jam<span class="text_exposed_show">es Wilson opposed a bill of rights because he believed it would be unnecessary and redundant. Wilson said: “for it would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the act that has brought the body into existence.”</span></p> <div class="text_exposed_show"> <p>In other words, since the general government isn’t given the power under the proposed Constitution to violate such liberties, it would be unnecessary to add a bill of rights.</p> <p>To the accusation that the Constitution gave the general government powers which were not explicitly stated, Wilson responded to such an assertion by noting that “everything which is not given is reserved.” Wilson said that power in the Constitution is not granted by “tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union.” Therefore, it had to be written in the Constitution to be an actual legitimate power. This understanding was made explicit by proponents of the Constitution well before the 10th Amendment reiterated those observations.</p> <p>Responding to the implication Brutus made that the Constitution would eradicate the state governments, Wilson said that “the existing union of the States, and even this projected system is nothing more than a formal act of incorporation.”</p> <p>Wilson’s speech remains one of the most underappreciated instances of support for the Constitution, and his narrative was adopted by the other leading Federalists and utilized in their own states. From its earliest days, its most vocal supporters insisted that the general government would become one of specific, enumerated powers.</p> </div> <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> Founding Principles History James Wilson State House Yard Speech Today in History Dave Benner Trump and Company Add $1.2 Trillion to National Debt in Fiscal 2019 https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/05/trump-and-company-add-1-2-trillion-to-national-debt-in-fiscal-2019/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:a786c2eb-f2c6-6aa1-6723-0798cc053445 Sat, 05 Oct 2019 17:17:58 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/05/trump-and-company-add-1-2-trillion-to-national-debt-in-fiscal-2019/" title="Trump and Company Add $1.2 Trillion to National Debt in Fiscal 2019" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-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/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>The U.S. national debt increased by $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2019, which ended Sept. 30. This follows on the heels of a $1.27 trillion increase in the national debt in fiscal 2018. The gross national debt currently comes in at a staggering $22.7 trillion, and climbing. To put this into perspective, when President Trump took [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/05/trump-and-company-add-1-2-trillion-to-national-debt-in-fiscal-2019/" title="Trump and Company Add $1.2 Trillion to National Debt in Fiscal 2019" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-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/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/money-toilet-paper-b-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>The U.S. national debt increased by $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2019, which ended Sept. 30. This follows on the heels of a $1.27 trillion increase in the national debt in fiscal 2018.<span id="more-28793"></span></p> <p>The gross national debt currently comes in at a staggering $22.7 trillion, and climbing.</p> <p>To put this into perspective, when President Trump took office in January 2017, the debt stood at $19.95 trillion. Last February, the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/15/full-speed-to-a-fiscal-cliff-national-debt-hits-22-trillion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">national debt topped $22 trillion</a>. That represented a $2.06 trillion increase in the debt in just over two years. The borrowing pace continues to accelerate, with the Treasury set to borrow over three-quarters of a trillion more in just six months. (If you’re wondering how the debt can grow by a larger number than the annual deficit, economist <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/the-federal-budget-mess-is-even-worse-than-reported/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mark Brandly explains here</a>.)</p> <p><img class="alignnone wp-image-33566 aligncenter" src="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/US-Gross-National-Debt-2011-2019-09-30-.png" alt="" width="423" height="525" /></p> <p>According to <a href="https://wolfstreet.com/2019/10/01/us-gross-national-debt-jumps-by-1-2-trillion-in-fiscal-2019-to-22-7-trillion-106-5-of-gdp/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">analysis by <em>WolfStreet</em></a>, the national debt increased by 5.6 percent in fiscal 2019. The debt now amounts fo 106.5 percent of current-dollar GDP, up from 105.4 percent at the end of FY2018. Or to put it another way, the economy as measured by nominal GDP over the past four quarters grew by $830 <strong>b</strong>illion. The gross national debt grew by $1.2 <strong>t</strong>rillion.</p> <p>There was a time that Republicans railed against growing budget deficits. With Trump in the Oval Office, they facilitate them. The current administration is spending us into oblivion. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/trump-budget-deficit-tops-2018-shortfall-with-two-months-left-to-go/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">fiscal year budget deficit surged passed $1 trillion i</a>n August. Spending deficits necessarily mean more government borrowing and we’re seeing that in these debt numbers. Uncle Sam’s <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/27/half-trillion-in-one-month-borrowing-us-into-oblivion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">outstanding public debt grew by $450 billion in August</a> alone.</p> <p>The GOP had complete control of the Federal government in fiscal 2018, but we can&#8217;t lay all the blame on Trump and the Republicans. Spending is a bipartisan sport. The debt ceiling put a crimp on federal government borrowing earlier in the year until the <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/bipartisan-fiscal-suicide-donald-and-nancy-team-up-for-more-spending-insanity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan budget deal</a> reached in July suspended the borrowing limit for two years.</p> <p>This was the same deal – <strong>signed by President Trump</strong> – that will increase discretionary spending from $1.32 trillion in the current fiscal year to $1.37 trillion in fiscal 2020 and then raises it again to $1.375 trillion the year after that. The deal will allow for an increase in both domestic and military spending. So, the spending train keeps right on rolling.</p> <p>The pundits in the mainstream media tend to focus on the Trump tax cuts as the cause for the surging deficits and growing national debt, but revenues are actually up. Trump spending is the real culprit. For the fiscal year (beginning Oct. 1), the Trump administration has spent $4.16 trillion. That’s up 7 percent over last year. Uncle Sam has already spent more this year than it did in the totality of FY 2018.</p> <p>In fact, spending has gone up during <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/16/big-spenders-get-worse-every-year-the-history-of-growth-since-1940/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">every presidential administration since 1940</a>.</p> <p>The last time we saw trillion-dollar deficits was during the Great Recession. As <em>WolfStreet</em> noted, the U.S. economy isn&#8217;t currently in a recession.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The thing to remember here is that this isn’t the Great Recession or the Financial Crisis, when over 10 million people lost their jobs and credit froze up and companies went bankrupt and tax revenues plunged while outlays soared to pay for unemployment insurance and the like. This isn’t even the Collapse of Everything, but the longest expansion of the economy in US history.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>In effect, Americans are buying this economic expansion with borrowed money. Imagine what these debt numbers are going to look like when the 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> Current Events Economy Donald Trump national debt Mike Maharrey Texas Sheriff Proposes Second Amendment Sanctuary https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/texas-sheriff-proposes-second-amendment-sanctuary/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:09ea1247-dc3d-d99d-4755-52cd64cc22ce Fri, 04 Oct 2019 20:55:01 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/texas-sheriff-proposes-second-amendment-sanctuary/" title="Texas Sheriff Proposes Second Amendment Sanctuary" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/04/texas-fist-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/texas-fist-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/texas-fist-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/texas-fist-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/texas-fist-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/texas-fist-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Hood County, Texas, Sheriff Roger Deeds has proposed the creation of a “gun sanctuary county” policy by refusing to enforce any new state or federal control laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. According to WFAA, Deeds said: “My message to the people of Hood County is I’m not going to [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/texas-sheriff-proposes-second-amendment-sanctuary/" title="Texas Sheriff Proposes Second Amendment Sanctuary" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/04/texas-fist-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/texas-fist-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/texas-fist-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/texas-fist-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/texas-fist-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/04/texas-fist-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Hood County, Texas, Sheriff Roger Deeds has proposed the creation of a “gun sanctuary county” policy by refusing to enforce any new state or federal control laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.<span id="more-33576"></span></p> <p>According to <a href="https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/hood-county-sanctuary-county-gun-proposal/287-6755c9a4-8926-4d68-a889-672701ac743e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WFAA</a>, Deeds said: “My message to the people of Hood County is I’m not going to stand by and allow anybody, if it’s the federal government or whoever, stating that they’re going to take away people’s rifles. That’s not going to happen,” Deeds said. “It can’t happen under the constitution of the United States the way it’s wrote anyway.”</p> <p>Deeds said he would craft the proposal into an ordinance or a resolution. &#8220;I’ll meet with the county attorney and we’ll see how it needs to exactly read,&#8221; he said.</p> <p>Earlier this year, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/03/texas-senate-bill-would-set-foundation-to-create-gun-rights-sanctuary-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a similar proposal was made at the state level</a> when Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood) filed SB378 prohibiting any state government agency, personnel or public funds from enforcing any federal gun control regulation or law “if the federal statute, order, rule, or regulation or international law imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation, such as a capacity, size, or configuration limitation, that does not exist under the laws of this state.” However, the bill did not pass.</p> <p>In contrast to gun rights advocates who insist on placing their hope in D.C. bureaucrats and politicians, Deeds’ strategy is realistic, practical and championed by the founders. 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, local governments can nullify in effect many federal actions. Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states, including city and county governments.</p> <p>It was an approach successfully employed by abolitionists in northern states after <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/the-fugitive-slave-act-of-1850-and-nullification-by-northern-states/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act</a>. Also, marijuana is legal in many states today even though it is still technically prohibited by the feds. That came about <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/10/28/gun-rights-supporters-can-learn-a-lesson-from-marijuana-activists/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">due to grassroots resistance</a> that made such policies untenable.</p> <p>In a televised discussion on the issue, Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control schemes, the states can effectively bring them down.”</p> <p>The proposal also rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a> is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.</p> <p>Even if Deeds&#8217; plan doesn&#8217;t get approved, it shows local elected officials there aren&#8217;t waiting for the right people to &#8220;drain the swamp.&#8221;</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> Local Right to Keep and Bear Arms Gun Rights Hood County Nullification second amendment Texas TJ Martinell New Mexico Must Accept Non-Residents into Its Medical Marijuana Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/new-mexico-must-accept-non-residents-into-its-medical-marijuana-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:2f245706-793a-c239-dacd-40c2486396d8 Fri, 04 Oct 2019 20:51:11 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/new-mexico-must-accept-non-residents-into-its-medical-marijuana-program/" title="New Mexico Must Accept Non-Residents into Its Medical Marijuana Program" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/06/new-mexico-flag-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/2019/06/new-mexico-flag-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/new-mexico-flag-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/new-mexico-flag-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/new-mexico-flag-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/new-mexico-flag-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>SANTA FE, New Mexico (Oct. 4, 2019) &#8211; A New Mexico judge has held that the state must accept non-residents into its medical marijuana program. The move will dramatically expand the medicinal cannabis market in the state despite federal prohibition and further nullify the unconstitutional federal prohibition of cannabis in practice. On Sept. 23, Santa [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/new-mexico-must-accept-non-residents-into-its-medical-marijuana-program/" title="New Mexico Must Accept Non-Residents into Its Medical Marijuana Program" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/06/new-mexico-flag-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/2019/06/new-mexico-flag-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/new-mexico-flag-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/new-mexico-flag-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/new-mexico-flag-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/06/new-mexico-flag-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p><strong>SANTA FE</strong>, New Mexico (Oct. 4, 2019) &#8211; A New Mexico judge has held that the state must accept non-residents into its medical marijuana program. The move will dramatically expand the medicinal cannabis market in the state despite federal prohibition and further nullify the unconstitutional federal prohibition of cannabis in practice.<span id="more-33580"></span></p> <p>On Sept. 23, Santa Fe District Court Judge Bryan Biedscheid affirmed a permanent writ of mandamus officially eliminating the residency requirement to participate in New Mexico’s Medical Cannabis Program.</p> <p>The judge&#8217;s decision comes after two Texans and an Arizonan who had been denied medical marijuana cards filed a request for a <a href="https://www.globenewswire.com/Tracker?data=SCQdwCId7mqDe0CIEWbuaw8aqBbJxQdZ6b8sQBGxog5-tkapGLTozA8iOTiI-NQp91ylrr17DrZAzwKbx8nxR3mxoj2Sxduu5NoxVkam1bLFKPNCOp86gKihmamWR2p_x_RdPVqanF3l-L7GxLbFKHcxsYaGORREtomQH7MELbCu-Ahnhpax3DL4oezyPrAJ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">writ of mandamus</a> granting them access to the program. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/now-in-effect-new-mexico-law-expands-medical-marijuana-program-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">updated Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act</a> expanded the state&#8217;s marijuana program and became effective June 14, 2019. The updated Act includes language that changed the definition of a qualified patient from a “New Mexico resident” to a “person.”</p> <p>&#8220;it is applicable to everyone. I think the law is clear,” Biedscheid said.“I look to the language of that statute first and foremost to determine legislative intent.&#8221;</p> <p>With the judge granting the writ of mandamus, the state&#8217;s medical-marijuana program is expected to expand significantly, despite continued 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>The expansion of New Mexico’s medical cannabis program removes another lawyer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the Land of Enchantment, but federal prohibition remains in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>New Mexico 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 this year</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including 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>The expansion of New Mexico&#8217;s medical marijuana program demonstrates another important strategic reality. Once a 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> <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 AB37 cannabis marijiana New Mexico Mike Maharrey Forgotten Founder: James Iredell https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/forgotten-founder-james-iredell/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:2d28f6ff-ff63-87f7-e438-0ca69897f100 Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:37:56 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/forgotten-founder-james-iredell/" title="Forgotten Founder: James Iredell" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419.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/2019/10/fast-friday-100419.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Born October 5, 1751 &#8211; Iredell rose to prominence at just 23 years old, was a leading thinker on issues like sovereignty and federalism, and was one of the earliest Supreme Court justices &#8211; appointed by George Washington. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 4, 2019 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes &#124; Google Play &#124; [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/forgotten-founder-james-iredell/" title="Forgotten Founder: James Iredell" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419.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/2019/10/fast-friday-100419.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/fast-friday-100419-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Born October 5, 1751 &#8211; Iredell rose to prominence at just 23 years old, was a leading thinker on issues like sovereignty and federalism, and was one of the earliest Supreme Court justices &#8211; appointed by George Washington.</p> <p>Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 4, 2019<span id="more-33574"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/2ujZOewDMVM" 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="spotify: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/2016/01/07/james-iredell-forgotten-founder-and-great-legal-mind/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">James Iredell: Forgotten Founder and Great Legal Mind</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/10/today-in-history-james-iredell-born/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Today in History: James Iredell Born</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/e1d451ef-f789-49ac-ab6c-f20b91d9f573" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B3NCbu9gr-2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/media/1026908237421719552" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/490123969" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1gqGvgDqDmgJB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+OqR6Jh2ZR" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6585928115426603008" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">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 James Iredell Path to Liberty Federalism sovereignty Supreme court Usurpation Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 12:14 Born October 5, 1751 – Iredell rose to prominence at just 23 years old, was a leading thinker on issues like sovereignty and federalism, and was one of the earliest Supreme Court justices – appointed by George Washington. Path to Liberty, Born October 5, 1751 – Iredell rose to prominence at just 23 years old, was a leading thinker on issues like sovereignty and federalism, and was one of the earliest Supreme Court justices – appointed by George Washington. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: October 4, 2019 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes | Google Play | […] New evidence on the constitutionality of paper money https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/04/new-evidence-on-the-constitutionality-of-paper-money/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:77fbd99c-d13e-e260-a880-921c4ddc889c Fri, 04 Oct 2019 14:39:05 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/04/new-evidence-on-the-constitutionality-of-paper-money/" title="New evidence on the constitutionality of paper money" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-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/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>For 150 years, many constitutional commentators argued that by the document’s original meaning, Congress had no authority to issue paper money. Libertarians therefore argued that paper currency was unconstitutional. Liberals often agreed that the original meaning forbade paper currency—and then used that example to contend that originalism is simply impractical. There is no question that [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/04/new-evidence-on-the-constitutionality-of-paper-money/" title="New evidence on the constitutionality of paper money" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-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/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/shutterstock_181177754-stack-of-gold-coins-on-money-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>For 150 years, many constitutional commentators argued that by the document’s original meaning, Congress had no authority to issue paper money. Libertarians therefore argued that paper currency was unconstitutional. Liberals often agreed that the original meaning forbade paper currency—and then used that example to contend that originalism is simply impractical.<span id="more-28763"></span></p> <p>There is no question that the Constitution forbids <em>states</em> from issuing one kind of paper money—<em>bills of credit</em>—and from decreeing as legal tender anything other than gold and silver coin. See Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. <em>Bills of credit</em> are essentially tiny government bonds designed to be circulated as money. (The “fiat” notes we use today are not bills of credit.) A currency is <em>legal tender</em> if the law requires citizens to accept that currency in payment; traditionally, not all paper money was legal tender, although today’s paper money is. (See photo above.)</p> <p>So the Constitution restricted the states’ coinage power—what of the federal government?</p> <p>Several years ago, I undertook an investigation into the original meaning of the Constitution’s Coinage Clause—Article I, Section 8, Clause 5. This grants Congress power to “coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin.” My findings were published in one of the Harvard University journals, and <a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/Coinage-Clause.pdf">you can find them here</a>.</p> <p>I learned that in Founding era discourse, the verb “to coin” had two meanings: (1) to make metallic coin and (2) to fabricate or create. The second meaning survives today in the saying “to coin a phrase.” During the Founding Era, however, the second meaning was much more common than it is today—although not quite as common as the first. People spoke of “coining paper,” “coining leather” (making leather money), and the like.</p> <p>Which of the two meanings appears in the Constitution?</p> <p>By closely examining the Constitution’s text, you can see that the second meaning is more probable. If “coin” referred only to metal tokens, then Congress’s power to regulate value (set exchange rates) would apply only to foreign metal coin, but not to foreign paper. This makes no sense. Also, why limit the power at the dividing line of metal versus paper? Prior history had shown that there was little practical difference between forging money from paper and forging it from scraps of tin. If the Coinage Clause was intended to limit Congress to valuable coin, then why didn’t the Coinage Clause specify  gold and silver coin, as did Article I, Section 10, Clause 1?</p> <p>One reason prior scholars had not solved the mystery is that most had limited themselves to the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and little more. The convention proceedings tell us most of the Framers did not like paper money. But you can’t therefore jump to the conclusion that their Constitution forbade it. Those same Framers had used paper money extensively during the Revolution, so they recognized that government might have to issue it in emergencies. On the precise question of whether Congress could issue paper, the convention proceedings were inconclusive.</p> <p>I then proceeded to do what few other researchers had done: I examined how the Constitution was represented to, and understood by, the ratifying public. And that resolved any doubt. As distasteful as paper currency might be, Congress had authority to issue it.</p> <p>I documented my conclusions heavily. Perhaps as a result, since my article appeared scholarly debate on the issue has dried up.</p> <p>The latest three volumes of the <em>Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution</em> confirm these findings. First, they reinforce the conclusion that most people—or at least most contemporaneous writers on the Constitution—disliked paper money. An example occurs at 32 DH 114: “Away with all worthless paper money.”</p> <p>But paper did have some defenders, at least conditionally. An example is an article in the <em>Pennsylvania Packet</em> reproduced at 32 DH 32: “The emission of paper was an obvious and necessary expedient [during the Revolution]; yet it was bad policy to throw vast sums into circulation without taking some measures to recall it.” Another writer asserted the only fault with paper money was that some of it was not backed by legal tender laws. 32 DH 310.</p> <p>In my article I concluded that nearly all of the Federalists and Antifederalists who spoke to the issue agreed the Constitution granted Congress authority to issue paper currency. (The only significant figure to claim the contrary was Antifederalist Luther Martin, who had represented Maryland at the Constitutional Convention.) The latest volumes include two more pieces of corroborating evidence—both articles by Antifederalists. The first is an item reprinted from the <em>Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal</em> of January 9, 1788. The author cited Congress’s power to issue paper money as a reason for opposing the Constitution:</p> <p><strong>“It is a great argument with the advocates of the new constitution, says a correspondent, that none of the states can make paper money or tender laws if the new constitution is established; true, they cannot, (and perhaps they ought not) but Congress will have that power, they are empowered by this constitution to make as much paper money, and pass as many tender laws as their highnesses may please. . . . ”</strong> 33 DH 772-72.</p> <p>Similarly, an Antifederalist writing under the name “Deliberator” wrote in the same paper on February 20, 1788, “Though I believe it is not generally so understood, yet certain it is, that Congress may emit paper money, and even make it a legal tender throughout the United States. . . . ” 33 DH 905.</p> <p>Advocates of the Constitution responded to such attacks by essentially predicting that Congress would not issue paper money—or at least would act responsibly. These hopes were expressed even before the Constitution became public by the “Foreign Spectator”, who wrote in the September 13, 1787 <em>Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer</em>, “But a coin of permanent universal value, struck by federal authority, would impress all the citizens of the United States with a constant sense of this power, and of its salutary protection.” 33 DH 941.</p> <p>However, I have never found a Federalist spokesman who denied categorically that Congress could “coin paper”. On the contrary, quite a few, among them Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, openly acknowledged the power.</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 gold money paper money silver To Coin Rob Natelson Tennessee Hearing on Asset Forfeiture Reform Scheduled https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/tennessee-hearing-on-asset-forfeiture-reform-scheduled/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:003c7610-7d9a-2589-2218-56b0373b6f47 Fri, 04 Oct 2019 12:05:58 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/tennessee-hearing-on-asset-forfeiture-reform-scheduled/" title="Tennessee Hearing on Asset Forfeiture Reform Scheduled" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-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-021419.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-021419-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-021419-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-021419-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-021419-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a>NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Oct. 4, 2019) &#8211; Later this month, the Tennesse legislature&#8217;s Civil Asset Forfeiture Task Force will hold a hearing on asset forfeiture reform in the Volunteer State. Rep. Martin Daniel (R-Knoxville) has spearheaded efforts to reform Tennessee&#8217;s asset forfeiture laws to require a conviction before prosecutors can permanently seize a person&#8217;s property. Last [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/tennessee-hearing-on-asset-forfeiture-reform-scheduled/" title="Tennessee Hearing on Asset Forfeiture Reform Scheduled" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-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-021419.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-021419-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-021419-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-021419-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-021419-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><p><strong>NASHVILLE</strong>, Tenn. (Oct. 4, 2019) &#8211; Later this month, the Tennesse legislature&#8217;s Civil Asset Forfeiture Task Force will hold a hearing on asset forfeiture reform in the Volunteer State.<span id="more-33563"></span></p> <p>Rep. Martin Daniel (R-Knoxville) has spearheaded efforts to reform Tennessee&#8217;s asset forfeiture laws to require a conviction before prosecutors can permanently seize a person&#8217;s property. Last year, Daniel sponsored <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/tennessee-bills-would-effectively-end-federal-asset-forfeiture-program-in-the-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a House bill</a> that would have created a process to determine whether there is probable cause before proceeding with asset forfeiture and close a loophole allowing state and local police to circumvent stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the feds.</p> <p>In 2018, the Tennesee legislature <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/04/tennessee-legislature-rejects-strict-restrictions-on-asset-forfeiture-keeps-federal-loophole-wide-open/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">passed modest reforms</a> to the state asset forfeiture process, but it rejected more strict restrictions on the process under intense law enforcement opposition.</p> <p>The law now requires law enforcement agencies to provide formal notification within five days of a property seizure or of a forfeiture-warrant hearing. Authorities must provide notice whether or not the owner was present at the time the property was taken. The bill also requires the state to pay attorney fees if a person proves police wrongfully seized their property. Additionally, the stipulates that merely possessing large amounts of cash is not considered a crime.</p> <p>Passage of the 2018 law created a foundation for activists in Tennessee to build on, and they have continued to push the issue forward. Those driving for reforms have set up a petition to support efforts. You can sign it <a href="https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/innocent-until-proven-guilty-end-caf-in-tn" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HERE</a>.</p> <p>The Institute for Justice <a href="https://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-tennessee/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gives Tennessee forfeiture laws a D-</a> and calls them &#8220;appalling.&#8221; Law enforcement only needs to tie property to a crime by a preponderance of the evidence &#8211; an extremely low legal standard &#8211; in order to forfeit it. Police can seize property without a conviction or even filing charges against the owner.</p> <p>Any asset forfeiture reforms in Tennessee should include language to close 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>The bill sponsored by Daniel last session included language that would close the loophole in most situations.</p> <blockquote><p>A local or state law enforcement agency, including a judicial district drug task force, 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, compiled in 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.</p> <p>A local or state law enforcement agency, including a judicial district drug task force, or participant in a joint task force or other multijurisdictional collaboration with the federal government shall not accept payment of any kind or distribution of forfeiture proceeds resulting from a joint task force or other multijurisdictional collaboration unless the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized in a case exceeds one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), excluding the value of contraband.</p></blockquote> <p>Very few cases exceed the $100,000 threshold.</p> <p>As the Tenth Amendment Center <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/09/feds-meddling-in-attempt-to-undermine-state-asset-forfeiture-reform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">previously reported</a> the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.</p> <p>Why?</p> <p>We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>The Civil Asset Forfeiture Task Force hearing will take place Tuesday, Oct. 29, at Cordell Hull Building (425 5th Avenue North) on the 1st floor, starting at 9 a.m. CST.</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 Equitable Sharing Policing for Profit Tennessee Mike Maharrey Tennessee School District Spying on Students’ Social Media Posts https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/tennessee-school-district-spying-on-students-social-media-posts/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ec9f9069-ea04-445f-f2c0-7283f2ac8a23 Thu, 03 Oct 2019 11:04:50 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/tennessee-school-district-spying-on-students-social-media-posts/" title="Tennessee School District Spying on Students&#8217; Social Media Posts" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-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/2019/10/school-fence-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>A recent article in The Tennessean reveals how the Williamson County School District (WCS) is monitoring students&#8217; free speech and social media posts. The WCS recently implemented a &#8220;threat surveillance program&#8221; called Gaggle that is so invasive and frightening, one would be hard pressed not to call it a &#8220;gag&#8221; program that limits students&#8217; free speech. When the WCS was [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/tennessee-school-district-spying-on-students-social-media-posts/" title="Tennessee School District Spying on Students&#8217; Social Media Posts" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-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/2019/10/school-fence-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/school-fence-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>A recent <a href="https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/franklin/2019/09/26/williamson-county-schools-gaggle-safety-management-platform/2431029001/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">article</a> in The <i>Tennessean</i> reveals how the Williamson County School District (WCS) is monitoring students&#8217; free speech and social media posts.<span id="more-33561"></span></p> <p>The WCS recently implemented a &#8220;threat surveillance program&#8221; called <a href="https://www.gaggle.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gaggle</a> that is so invasive and frightening, one would be hard pressed not to call it a &#8220;gag&#8221; program that limits students&#8217; free speech.</p> <p>When the WCS was asked to reveal specific details about what Gaggle and authorities are monitoring students&#8217; speech for, they claimed they could not reveal any details &#8220;due to federal family protection laws.&#8221;</p> <p>Public &amp; private schools are joining the ranks of alphabet soup surveillance agencies like DHS, the FBI and the NSA claiming they cannot reveal surveillance details.</p> <p>The <i>Tennessean </i>was able to<i> </i>shed some light on what Gaggle monitors by saying it, &#8220;operates using a mathematical algorithm to identify high-risk words and phrases when students are logged into the district’s server.&#8221;</p> <p>Gaggle&#8217;s video was a little more revealing, claiming that they monitor students social media posts 24/7 for things like:</p> <ul> <li>profanity</li> <li>insulting language</li> <li>hate speech</li> <li>provocative images</li> <li>pornography</li> <li>drug use</li> <li>alcohol use and much more</li> </ul> <p>When school districts and private corporations start monitoring students for things like profanity and insulting language, we should all be worried because it will not end there.</p> <p>Soon social media providers will monitor everyone.</p> <p>Parents think school districts have crossed the line with Gaggle.</p> <p>&#8220;I&#8217;m concerned about the mining of all the other student-written text, regarding bullying, profanity, or anything offensive. Aren&#8217;t kids going to be too nervous to write anything that&#8217;s potentially controversial? What kind of education will they get if they&#8217;re walking on eggshells not to offend the computer algorithm?” WCS parent Thomas Morgan said.</p> <p>Gaggle&#8217;s monitoring of students is a lot more invasive than what parents are being told.</p> <p>Gaggle&#8217;s <a href="https://www.gaggle.net/press-room/press-release/gaggle-releases-safety-management-dashboard/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">&#8220;Safety Management Dashboard&#8221;</a> allows school staff and law enforcement to identify and track individual students who have the highest number of incidents.</p> <p>The Gaggle Safety Management Dashboard allows superintendents, principals and other educators who are responsible for student safety to investigate and answer the following questions:</p> <ul> <li>Which of my schools has the highest amount of incidents?</li> <li>What educational tools are my students using most frequently?</li> <li>How severe are the incidents Gaggle Safety Representatives discover?</li> <li>Has the number of inappropriate incidents increased or decreased over time?</li> <li>How does my school or district’s incident rate compare with national averages?</li> </ul> <p>Mr. Morgan was right, students will be walking on eggshells because they will be afraid of getting put on a watchlist.</p> <p>Gaggle is like Alexa on steroids.</p> <p>A Gaggle video called <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM1vdVS7wRM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">&#8220;do you know what your students are doing online?&#8221;</a> is a damning account of exactly how invasive their threat to free speech is.</p> <p>Gaggle&#8217;s Bloomington, Illinois, staff listens to and watches students&#8217; social media content in real-time 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.</p> <p>The video also revealed that at least seven school districts are using Gaggle: Oklahoma Public Schools, Cincinnati public schools, Duval public schools, Fort Wayne Community Schools, Johnston County Schools, Denver Public Schools, and last but not least, the Williamson County School District.</p> <p>The <i>Tennessean </i><a href="https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/franklin/2019/09/26/williamson-county-schools-gaggle-safety-management-platform/2431029001/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">revealed</a> a<i> </i>horrific<i> </i>vision of how school board members view monitoring students free speech.</p> <p>“I don’t think it interferes with free speech. I think it is just like any other employer’s authority to monitor their network,” School board member Eliot Mitchell, 3rd District, an IT executive at a computer systems company said.</p> <p>When faculty and law enforcement start viewing themselves as employers and students as employees, is it any wonder their free speech is in jeopardy?</p> <p>What makes Gaggle&#8217;s incident tracking system even more disconcerting is that it builds a database of each student&#8217;s infraction[s] that will follow them throughout their lives.</p> <p>Allowing corporations to create databases of our kids&#8217; lives in school is horrendous. Soon no one will be able to escape being put on some type of government/corporate watchlist. That terrifies me.</p> <p><strong>This article was originally <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2019/10/school-districts-use-gaggle-to-monitor.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">published at MassPrivatel</a></strong></p> <p><em>Editors Note: Some of the information collected through these local surveillance programs almost certainly ends up in federal databases. 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. </em></p> <p><em>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.”</em></p> <p><em>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.</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> Surveillance Free Speech Gaggle Privacy surveillance Tennessee jprivate Today in History: Bill of Rights Sent for Ratification Consideration https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/today-in-history-bill-of-rights-sent-for-ratification-consideration/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:886c386e-04ae-3ad7-187b-550f40a56698 Wed, 02 Oct 2019 20:03:51 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/today-in-history-bill-of-rights-sent-for-ratification-consideration/" title="Today in History: Bill of Rights Sent for Ratification Consideration" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-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/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Today in history, on October 2, 1789, President of the United States George Washington sent proposed copies of the Bill of Rights to the states which were to consider, debate, and decide whether or not to adopt the list of restrictions upon the power of the general government. In the state ratification conventions, several skeptics [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/today-in-history-bill-of-rights-sent-for-ratification-consideration/" title="Today in History: Bill of Rights Sent for Ratification Consideration" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-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/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/bill-of-rights-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Today in history, on October 2, 1789, President of the United States George Washington sent proposed copies of the Bill of Rights to the states which were to consider, debate, and decide whether or not to adopt the list of restrictions upon the power of the general government.<span id="more-33571"></span></p> <p>In the state ratification conventions, several skeptics alleged that without such a bill of rights, the newly-created government would openly encroach upon the liberties of individuals and destroy the authority of the states at the behest of the central government.</p> <p>George Mason, primary author of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, criticized the Constitution on this basis, alleging that he would “sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution” that stood without such an instrument. Fellow Virginian Patrick Henry similarly protested in Richmond that the lack of a bill of rights would represent “the abandonment of your most sacred rights.” </p> <p>From New York, a writer calling himself “Brutus” declared that its omission would lead the country “into an absolute state of vassalage.” Without a bill of rights, wrote Constitution opponent Luther Martin, the general government would spawn “a legislature without check or control” that “would open a door to every species of fraud and oppression.” From France, Thomas Jefferson contended that “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”</p> <p>During the ratification struggle, some of the most ardent advocates of the unmodified Constitution during the ratification struggle had denied that such a bill of rights was a necessity, and even alleged that such an addition would be destructive. </p> <p>For example, James Wilson of Pennsylvania argued that “it would have been superfluous and absurd” to have listed restrictions within a document designed to permit only the powers expressly delegated. However, some of those that originally opposed a bill of rights – such as Roger Sherman and James Madison – began to change their position on a bill of rights by the time of the First Congress.</p> <p>To allay these misgivings about the constitutional framework, the First Congress debated and proposed a list of amendments to comprise a bill of rights – designed to encourage apprehensive factions within each state to accept the model. </p> <p>Sherman played the pivotal role in assuring that the amendments would be part of an enumerated list rather than interspersed throughout the existing Constitution. Drawing upon verbiage from bills of rights from various states, and the debates in Congress, Madison settled upon a list of 12 amendments to send the states in 1789. By 1791, 10 of the 12 amendments received the endorsement of the states, and the federal Bill of Rights was born.</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> Bill of Rights History State Ratifying Conventions George Mason Ratification Today in History Dave Benner The 9th Amendment: Partner to the 10th https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/the-9th-amendment-partner-to-the-10th/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ca643b4f-662c-e87b-edd7-870060a8fa02 Wed, 02 Oct 2019 17:53:13 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/the-9th-amendment-partner-to-the-10th/" title="The 9th Amendment: Partner to the 10th" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/path-093019.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/2019/10/path-093019.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-093019-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-093019-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-093019-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-093019-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-093019-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-093019-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Few parts of the Constitution have been so misunderstood as the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. With its 21 words the 9th Amendment reads; “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Learn about two primary models or theories of [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/the-9th-amendment-partner-to-the-10th/" title="The 9th Amendment: Partner to the 10th" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/10/path-093019.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/2019/10/path-093019.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-093019-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-093019-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-093019-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-093019-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-093019-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/10/path-093019-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Few parts of the Constitution have been so misunderstood as the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. With its 21 words the 9th Amendment reads; “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Learn about two primary models or theories of the 9th: 1) the individual natural rights, or libertarian, model and 2) the federalist model</p> <p>Path to Liberty: October 3, 2019<span id="more-33567"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/MgBFGwRApEQ?start=56" 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="spotify: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://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=789384" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Barnett &#8211; The Ninth Amendment: It Means What it Says</a></p> <p><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=613621" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Lash: The Lost Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment</a></p> <p><a href="https://lawreviewdrake.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/irvol56-4_lash.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Lash: Three Myths of the Ninth Amendment</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/04/26/the-ninth-amendment-the-tenths-partner/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Ninth Amendment: The Tenth’s Partner</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/8bdbc8fb-615e-45af-bf9a-9b9401b6a6a4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="#" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/8bdbc8fb-615e-45af-bf9a-9b9401b6a6a4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1vAxRqmZZDaJl" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+xGAntv2ZR" 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> 9th Amendment Audio/Video Path to Liberty 10th Amendment Federalism Individual Rights Kurt Lash Natural Rights Ninth Amendment Randy Barnett Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 30:32 Few parts of the Constitution have been so misunderstood as the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. With its 21 words the 9th Amendment reads; “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other... Few parts of the Constitution have been so misunderstood as the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. With its 21 words the 9th Amendment reads; “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Learn about two primary models or theories of […] No, the Government Shouldn’t Be Using the Military to Police the Globe https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/02/no-the-government-shouldnt-be-using-the-military-to-police-the-globe/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:fc02f5fe-ae01-1840-7946-2a17c3d8260a Wed, 02 Oct 2019 14:25:07 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/02/no-the-government-shouldnt-be-using-the-military-to-police-the-globe/" title="No, the Government Shouldn’t Be Using the Military to Police the Globe" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/empire-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/2019/05/empire-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/empire-1280-300x169.jpg 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/empire-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/empire-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/empire-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls. <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/02/no-the-government-shouldnt-be-using-the-military-to-police-the-globe/" title="No, the Government Shouldn’t Be Using the Military to Police the Globe" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/empire-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/2019/05/empire-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/empire-1280-300x169.jpg 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/empire-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/empire-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/empire-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p><em>“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”</em><br /> -James Madison</p> <p>Eventually, all military empires fall and fail by spreading themselves too thin and spending themselves to death.<span id="more-28784"></span></p> <p><a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/10/empire200610">It happened in Rome.</a></p> <p>It’s happening again.</p> <p>At the height of its power, even the mighty Roman Empire could not stare down a collapsing economy and a burgeoning military. Prolonged periods of war and false economic prosperity largely led to its demise. As historian Chalmers Johnson predicts:</p> <blockquote><p>The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. <a href="http://archive.li/Ts2SF">Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy.</a> Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire.</p></blockquote> <p>The American Empire—with its endless wars waged by U.S. military servicepeople who have been reduced to little more than guns for hire: outsourced, stretched too thin, and deployed to far-flung places to police the globe—is approaching a breaking point.</p> <p>War has become a huge money-making venture, and America, with its vast military empire and its incestuous relationship with a host of international defense contractors, is one of its best <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_defense_budgets">buyers</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters">sellers</a>. In fact, as Reuters reports, “[President] <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-arms-insight/arming-the-world-inside-trumps-buy-american-drive-to-expand-weapons-exports-idUSKBN1HO2PT">Trump has gone further than any of his predecessors to act as a salesman for the U.S. defense industry</a>.”</p> <p>Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S. military is <a href="https://www.truthdig.com/articles/trumps-military-drops-a-bomb-every-12-minutes-and-no-one-is-talking-about-it/">dropping a bomb every 12 minutes</a>.</p> <p>This follows on the heels of President Obama, the so-called antiwar candidate and Nobel Peace Prize winner who <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/obama-as-wartime-president-has-wrestled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html">waged war longer than any American president</a> and whose targeted-drone killings resulted in <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror">at least 1.3 million lives lost to the U.S.-led war on terror</a>.</p> <p>Most recently, the Trump Administration signaled its willingness <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/should-us-troops-put-their-lives-on-the-line-for-saudi-arabia/2019/09/21/2afdaede-daf2-11e9-bfb1-849887369476_story.html">to put the lives of American troops on the line</a> in order to guard Saudi Arabia’s oil resources. Roughly <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/world/middleeast/troops-defense-saudi-pentagon.html">200 American troops will join the 500 troops already stationed</a> in Saudi Arabia. That’s in addition to the <a href="https://www.axios.com/where-us-troops-deployed-middle-east-5e96fdb2-c7ba-4f26-90b4-7bf452f83847.html">60,000 U.S. troops that have been deployed throughout the Middle East</a> for decades.</p> <p>As <em>The Washington Post</em> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/should-us-troops-put-their-lives-on-the-line-for-saudi-arabia/2019/09/21/2afdaede-daf2-11e9-bfb1-849887369476_story.html">points out</a>, “The United States is now the world’s <a title="www.eia.gov" href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37053">largest producer</a> — and its reliance on Saudi imports has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/business/saudi-arabia-oil-energy-prices.html">dropped dramatically</a>, including by 50 percent in the past two years alone.”</p> <p>So if we’re not protecting the oil for ourselves, whose interests are we protecting?</p> <p>The military industrial complex is calling the shots, of course, and profit is its primary objective.</p> <p>The military-industrial complex is also the <a href="http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/03/27/worlds-largest-employer-youll-never-guess/">world’s largest employer</a>.</p> <p>America has long had a penchant for endless wars that empty our national coffers while fattening those of the military industrial complex.</p> <p>Aided and abetted by the U.S government, the American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.</p> <p>Although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world&#8217;s population, America boasts almost <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-defense-spending-2010-11?op=1#ixzz1RdbaVmHm">50% of the world&#8217;s total military expenditure</a>, spending <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8002911/Defence-spending-the-worlds-biggest-armies-in-stats.html">more</a> on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined. Indeed, the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-defense-spending-2010-11?op=1#ixzz1RdbaVmHm">Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined</a> spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.</p> <p>Unfortunately, this level of war-mongering doesn’t come cheap to the taxpayers who are forced to foot the bill.</p> <p>Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than <a href="https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/">$32 million <em>per hour</em></a>.</p> <p>In fact, the U.S. government has <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-defense-spending-2010-11?op=1#ixzz1RdbaVmHm">spent more money every five seconds in Iraq</a> than the average American earns in a year.</p> <p>With <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/map-shows-places-world-where-us-military-operates-180970997/">more than 800 U.S. military bases in 80 countries</a>, the U.S. is now operating in 40 percent of the world’s nations at a <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321">cost of $160 to $200 billion <em>annually</em></a>.</p> <p>Despite the fact that Congress has only officially declared war eleven times in the nation’s short history, the last time being during World War II, the United States has <a href="https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946">been at war for all but 21 of the past 243 years</a>.</p> <p>It’s cost the American taxpayer more than <a href="https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/">$4.7 trillion</a> since 2001 to fight the government’s so-called “war on terrorism.” That’s in addition to “<a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/map-shows-places-world-where-us-military-operates-180970997/">$127 billion in the last 17 years to train police, military and border patrol agents</a> in many countries and to develop antiterrorism education programs, among other activities.” That does not include the cost of maintaining and staffing the <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/the-us-has-military-bases-in-172-countries-all-of-them-must-close/">800-plus U.S. military bases spread around the globe</a>.</p> <p>The cost of perpetuating those endless wars and military exercises around the globe is expected to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/02/01/american-taxpayers-must-be-told-the-real-cost-of-war/#40e7d47e5246">push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053</a>.</p> <p>The U.S. government is spending money it doesn’t have on a military empire it can’t afford.</p> <p>As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United States has been <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/cost-wars-iraq-afghanistan/499007/">fighting terrorism with a credit card</a>, “essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan.”</p> <p>War is not cheap, but it becomes outrageously costly when you factor in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/opinion/03sun3.html">government incompetence, fraud, and greedy contractors</a>.</p> <p>For example, a leading accounting firm concluded that one of the Pentagon’s largest agencies “<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/pentagon-logistics-agency-review-funds-322860">can’t account for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of spending</a>.”</p> <p>Unfortunately, the outlook isn’t much better for the spending that can be tracked.</p> <p>Consider that the government lost more than $160 billion to waste and fraud by the military and defense contractors. With paid contractors often outnumbering enlisted combat troops, the American war effort dubbed as the “coalition of the willing” has quickly evolved into the “coalition of the billing,” with American taxpayers forced to cough up billions of dollars for cash bribes, luxury bases, a highway to nowhere, faulty equipment, salaries for so-called “ghost soldiers,” and <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/contractor-waste-iraq-KBR">overpriced anything and everything</a> associated with the war effort, including a <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/only-the-pentagon-could-spend-640-on-a-toilet-seat/">$640 toilet seat and a $7600 coffee pot</a>.</p> <p>A government audit found that defense contractor Boeing has been massively <a href="http://www.pogo.org/our-work/articles/2011/ns-sp-20110623-2.html">overcharging taxpayers</a> for mundane parts, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in overspending. As the report noted, the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/28/256216/boeing-price-gouging-army/">American taxpayer paid</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>$71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents; $644.75 for a small gear smaller than a dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000 percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.</p></blockquote> <p>That <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/28/256216/boeing-price-gouging-army/">price gouging</a> has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a sad statement on how little control “we the people” have over our runaway government.</p> <p>There’s a good reason why <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/opinion/03sun3.html">“bloated,” “corrupt” and “inefficient” are among the words most commonly applied to the government</a>, especially the Department of Defense and its contractors. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/28/256216/boeing-price-gouging-army/">Price gouging</a> has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire.</p> <p>It’s not just the American economy that is being gouged, unfortunately.</p> <p>Driven by a greedy defense sector, the American homeland has been transformed into a battlefield with militarized police and weapons better suited to a war zone. Trump, no different from his predecessors, has continued to expand America’s military empire abroad and domestically, calling on Congress to approve <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/02/12/585093915/trump-offers-spending-blueprint-but-congress-already-wrote-the-check">billions more to hire cops, build more prisons and wage more profit-driven war-on-drugs/war-on-terrorism/war-on-crime programs</a> that pander to the powerful money interests (military, corporate and security) that run the Deep State and hold the government in its clutches.</p> <p>Mind you, this isn’t just corrupt behavior. It’s deadly, downright immoral behavior.</p> <p>Essentially, in order to fund this burgeoning military empire that polices the globe, the U.S. government is prepared to bankrupt the nation, jeopardize our servicemen and women, increase the chances of terrorism and blowback domestically, and push the nation that much closer to eventual collapse.</p> <p>Making matters worse, taxpayers are being forced to pay <a href="https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/foreign-military-assistance/">$1.4 million per hour</a> to provide U.S. weapons to countries that can’t afford them. As <em>Mother Jones </em><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/iraq-military-win-business-not-war">reports</a>, the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Finance program “opens the way for the US government to pay for weapons for other countries—only to ‘promote world peace,’ of course—using your tax dollars, which are then recycled into the hands of military-industrial-complex corporations.”</p> <p>Clearly, our national priorities are in desperate need of an <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0607-lopez-fallingapart-20150606-column.html">overhauling</a>.</p> <p>As <em>Los Angeles Times</em> reporter Steve Lopez rightly asks:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0607-lopez-fallingapart-20150606-column.html">Why throw money at defense when everything is falling down around us?</a> Do we need to spend more money on our military (about $600 billion this year) than the next seven countries combined? Do we need 1.4 million active military personnel and 850,000 reserves when the enemy at the moment — ISIS — numbers in the low tens of thousands? If so, it seems there&#8217;s something radically wrong with our strategy. Should 55% of the federal government&#8217;s discretionary spending go to the military and only 3% to transportation when the toll in American lives is far greater from failing infrastructure than from terrorism? Does California need nearly as many active military bases (31, according to militarybases.com) as it has UC and state university campuses (33)? And does the state need more active duty military personnel (168,000, according to Governing magazine) than public elementary school teachers (139,000)?</p></blockquote> <p>The illicit merger of the global armaments industry and the Pentagon that <a href="https://harpers.org/blog/2007/11/eisenhower-on-the-opportunity-cost-of-defense-spending/">President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against more than 50 years ago</a> has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation’s fragile infrastructure today.</p> <p>The government is destabilizing the economy, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0607-lopez-fallingapart-20150606-column.html">destroying the national infrastructure</a> through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.</p> <p>This is exactly the scenario Eisenhower warned against when he cautioned the citizenry not to let the profit-driven war machine endanger our liberties or democratic processes:</p> <blockquote><p>“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. <a href="https://harpers.org/blog/2007/11/eisenhower-on-the-opportunity-cost-of-defense-spending/">We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.</a> This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”</p></blockquote> <p>We failed to heed Eisenhower’s warning.</p> <p>The illicit merger of the armaments industry and the government that Eisenhower warned against has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation today.</p> <p>What we have is a confluence of factors and influences that go beyond mere comparisons to Rome. It is a union of Orwell’s <em>1984</em> with its shadowy, totalitarian government—i.e., fascism, the union of government and corporate powers—and a total surveillance state with a military empire extended throughout the world.</p> <p>This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.</p> <p>As I make clear in my book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-America-War-American-People/dp/1590793099"><em>Battlefield America: The War on the American People</em></a>, the growth of and reliance on militarism as the solution for our problems both domestically and abroad bodes ill for the constitutional principles which form the basis of the American experiment in freedom.</p> <p>After all, a military empire ruled by martial law does not rely on principles of equality and justice for its authority but on the power of the sword. As author Aldous Huxley warned: “Liberty cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near-war footing. Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of the central government.”</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> Foreign Policy Militarism War John Whitehead You’d Better Nip That Power in the Bud! https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/youd-better-nip-that-power-in-the-bud/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:91b4d372-b4aa-b92a-7114-cfd249064c67 Wed, 02 Oct 2019 14:21:37 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/youd-better-nip-that-power-in-the-bud/" title="You&#8217;d Better Nip That Power in the Bud!" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-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/2018/10/danger-warning-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a>When you see even the slightest expansion of government power, you should resist it. If you don&#8217;t nip it in the bud, the vine will take over the world! One of my biggest frustrations right now is all the people I knew back in the Tea Party days who support President Trump with no reservations. These are [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/youd-better-nip-that-power-in-the-bud/" title="You&#8217;d Better Nip That Power in the Bud!" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-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/2018/10/danger-warning-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><p>When you see even the slightest expansion of government power, you should resist it. If you don&#8217;t nip it in the bud, the vine will take over the world!<span id="more-33477"></span></p> <p>One of my biggest frustrations right now is all the people I knew back in the Tea Party days who support President Trump with <em>no reservations</em>. These are the same people who were talking about how important it was to limit federal power, shrink the federal government, cut federal spending and deal with the national debt when Barack Obama was president.</p> <p>The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/as-bad-as-obama-trump-administration-running-up-massive-budget-deficits/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">federal government is running Obama-era like deficits</a> right now and we&#8217;re not even in a recession. This should raise some eyebrows. even if you like other things the president is doing.</p> <p>The problem is most people are OK with government power as long as somebody they like is in control of it. They forget that their guy won&#8217;t always be in charge.</p> <p>I&#8217;ve been studying the <a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/dickinson-empire-and-nation-letters-from-a-farmer" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania</em></a>. These were a series of essays written by John Dickinson protesting the Townshend Acts and British power encroaching on the rights of the colonists. Dickinson warned about letting the government take on even a little bit of new power. He said it would eventually lead to bigger and bigger usurpations.</p> <blockquote><p><em>&#8220;All artful rulers, who strive to extend their power beyond its just limits, endeavor to give to their attempts as much semblance of legality as possible. Those who succeed them may venture to go a little further; for each new encroachment will be strengthened by a former. &#8216;That which is now supported by examples, growing old, will become an example itself,&#8217; and thus support fresh usurpations.&#8221;</em></p></blockquote> <p>John Adams also insisted that we should oppose even minor violations of our rights.</p> <p>“Obsta principiis,” he wrote; a Latin phrase meaning, withstand beginnings, or resist the first approaches or encroachments. Colloquially, we would say, “nip it in the bud,” which is exactly the phraseology Adams used.</p> <blockquote><p><em>“Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people.”</em></p></blockquote> <p>We should heed Dickinson&#8217;s and Adams&#8217; advice. No matter who is in power.</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> John Adams John Dickinson Strategy Obsta principiis Mike Maharrey Vaccine Mandates: A Primer https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/01/vaccine-mandates-a-primer/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:e112714b-e483-ac29-b043-076ae02b7622 Wed, 02 Oct 2019 00:23:05 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/01/vaccine-mandates-a-primer/" title="Vaccine Mandates: A Primer" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-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/2019/03/vaccines-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-1280-300x169.jpg 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>The federal government has developed and propagated a narrative on vaccines, primarily through the CDC. Additionally, CDC vaccine recommendations have been used as the basis for mandatory vaccinations in many states. But relying solely on the federal government&#8217;s storyline could give an incomplete picture of the vaccine issue. Currently, the federal government has not attempted [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/01/vaccine-mandates-a-primer/" title="Vaccine Mandates: A Primer" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-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/2019/03/vaccines-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-1280-300x169.jpg 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/vaccines-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>The federal government has developed and propagated a narrative on vaccines, primarily through the CDC. Additionally, CDC vaccine recommendations have been used as the basis for mandatory vaccinations in many states. But relying solely on the federal government&#8217;s storyline could give an incomplete picture of the vaccine issue.</p> <p>Currently, the federal government has not attempted to impose any federal vaccine mandates, but there could be a push for them in the future. There are a number of facts that are often left out of the CDC&#8217;s vaccine messaging. Following are a number of issues surrounding vaccines that should be taken into account.</p> <p><strong>The government has removed liability for vaccine manufacturers and those administering vaccines.</strong></p> <p>Although almost all U.S. manufacturers are subject to product liability, the federal government has lifted this burden from those manufacturing most of the vaccines Americans receive. Liability has also been lifted for those administering the vaccines.</p> <p>This resulted from the 1986 passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) and subsequent amendments to the Act, along with the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision in <em>Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.</em> [1]</p> <p>The 1986 Act also created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), a special system outside of the normal litigation process for claims of harm caused by vaccines, in which the government is the defendant, not the vaccine manufacturers. Any compensation granted by the NVICP is paid by the public, through a surcharge on vaccines, and not by vaccine manufacturers. Over $4 billion has been paid out under this system. [2]</p> <p>The lack of liability for vaccine manufacturers creates an obvious disincentive to make vaccines as safe as possible.</p> <p><strong>The normal rules of discovery don’t apply to vaccine manufacturers. </strong></p> <p>During product liability litigation, companies generally must respond to discovery. This requires them to produce relevant records, such as e-mails and research records, and to answer interrogatories and requests for admissions.</p> <p>Discovery is the process through which damaging evidence has come to light in recent high-profile product liability cases, such as those involving Bayer/Monsanto’s Glyphosate, Johnson &amp; Johnson’s talc products and Merck&#8217;s Vioxx. Despite how useful discovery is in uncovering damaging evidence, the government has also given vaccine manufacturers a pass in this area. Discovery is not permitted in the NVICP process and, pursuant to the NCVIA, vaccine manufacturers cannot be made to submit to discovery in connection with claims of vaccine injury. Like the lack of product liability, this lack of claimants&#8217; right to discovery is nearly unique to the vaccine industry.</p> <p><strong><em>Both </em>childhood and adult CDC vaccines schedules exist and could potentially be mandated.</strong></p> <p>It’s often assumed that the CDC only has a <em>childhood </em>vaccine schedule and that, for this reason, the debate about whether vaccines should be mandated only concerns childhood vaccines. However, these assumptions are wrong. In fact, the CDC has <em>both </em>childhood and adult vaccine schedules. [3]</p> <p>Therefore, mandating vaccines in accordance with CDC recommendations could potentially involve compelling vaccinations upon <em>both</em> children and adults. Many may be shocked to learn that, according to the current CDC schedules, a person receiving all of the recommended doses on the childhood schedule and all of those on the adult schedule would receive a lifetime total of approximately 149 vaccine doses. [4]</p> <p>Further, hundreds of new vaccines are in the developmental process and it is expected that many will be added to the CDC’s schedules.</p> <p><strong>Childhood vaccine mandates exist at the state level and exemptions from the mandates are being eliminated.</strong></p> <p>In the U.S., no state adult vaccine mandates currently exist, but all states mandate childhood vaccines. State laws vary with regard to exemptions from these mandates. Generally, three types of exemptions exist, with states historically permitting some or all of these:  1.) religious; 2.) philosophical; and 3.) medical. An orchestrated effort is underway to eliminate state exemptions and the pharmaceutical industry is highly involved in the effort. The industry’s actions have included, among other things, serving as information resources for state legislators, lobbying legislators and even drafting pro-mandate legislation. [5]</p> <p>Throughout the country, exemptions are being rolled back and/or eliminated at an increasing pace. Recent examples of states losing exemptions are Maine, New York and Washington. [6] In California, changes were recently made to the state&#8217;s last remaining exemption, the medical exemption. The new law will severely restrict its use. [7]</p> <p><strong>Future mandates may come from the federal level.</strong></p> <p>As discussed above, under current law, vaccine mandates exist only for <em>children </em>and they are issued at the <em>state level</em>.  However, the federal government has clearly indicated its intention to increase vaccinations in the U.S. population, including in adults, and has set this goal forth in the National Vaccine Plan, developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2010. [8] Further, there is reason to believe that this will be accomplished through <em>federal </em>mandates.</p> <p>In February of 2019, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, then Commissioner of the FDA, made comments to CNN indicating a belief that the federal government has the authority to mandate vaccines and could step in with mandates if states don&#8217;t require more children to get vaccinated. [9] Gottlieb resigned as FDA Commissioner in May of 2019 and in June of 2019, he joined the Board of Directors of Pfizer, Inc., a vaccine manufacturer. [10] His departure from a high-level CDC position into a high-level position with a vaccine manufacturer was not unusual. Julie Gerberding is an earlier example of this “revolving door.” She was the director of the CDC from 2002 to 2009 and accepted a highly paid position as president of Merck’s vaccine division only about a year after leaving the CDC. [11]</p> <p><strong>The number of vaccines and the number of doses of vaccines on the schedules is growing significantly.</strong></p> <p>Not surprisingly, since liability was removed from vaccine manufacturers in 1986, the number of vaccines recommended by the industry and the CDC has risen sharply. For example, the CDC currently recommends 70 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18. [12] This is a significant increase from the 24 doses of 7 childhood vaccines recommended by the CDC in 1983. [13]</p> <p><strong>Vaccines safety testing is far less rigorous than for other pharmaceutical products.</strong></p> <p>The public would likely be surprised to learn that the safety testing required of vaccines, a product mandated to be injected into children, is far less rigorous than that required for drugs. The FDA has classified 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. [14] [15] Additionally, vaccines are subject to very short periods of monitoring for adverse reactions, often of 14 days or less. [16] [17]</p> <p><strong>The history of vaccines you were taught by public schools is incomplete and inaccurate</strong><strong>.</strong></p> <p>If you delve into any historical or political subject, you soon find that much of the history you were taught in public school is false. For example, you&#8217;ll often come across historical myths you were taught concerning the Federal Reserve or U.S. military interventions. Although we understand that facts about conflicts of interest, corruption and cronyism are often left out of public-school history lessons, we&#8217;re often resistant to the idea that this may also be the case with regard to vaccines.</p> <p>In fact, the myths and misinformation taught about vaccines in public schools are on par with those taught about the monetary system and war. They&#8217;re too voluminous to fully address in the instant article. However, as an example, one researching beyond the state-sanctioned version of vaccine history would learn that, contrary to popular belief, death rates from infectious diseases plummeted in the U.S. before the widespread use of vaccines. [18] They would also learn that the decline in death rates was primarily due to advances in the standard of living, such as improved hygiene, improved sanitation, improved nutrition, the use of sewage systems, the availability of electricity, the chlorination of water, the use of refrigeration and pasteurization. [19]</p> <p>This history is thoroughly documented in <em>Dissolving Illusions:  Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History, </em>a book by co-authored by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, a medical doctor, Internist and Board-Certified Nephrologist. [20] The book includes, in part, a discussion of the misinformation surrounding the polio and smallpox vaccines, the two vaccines whose histories are perhaps the most distorted.</p> <p>Other information about vaccines generally not taught in public schools includes the following: their risks of adverse reactions [21]; their toxic or concerning ingredients (such as aluminum, mercury, antibiotics, formaldehyde, Polysorbate 80, MSG and aborted human fetal tissue) [22]; their surprisingly low effectiveness rates [23] [24]; their diminished effectiveness with subsequent doses [25]; the strain replacement and strain enhancement they can cause [26] [27]; the existence of vaccine strains of viruses [28]; the viral shedding that can occur following some vaccinations [29] [30]; evidence linking them to conditions such as autism [31] [32], autoimmune disorders [33] [34], allergies [35] and other medical conditions; and how their use for one infectious disease can increase the incidence of other infectious diseases, such as the incidence of shingles increasing from use of the chickenpox vaccine [36]. This list is not exhaustive.</p> <p><strong>Additional Reading</strong></p> <p>The websites and books below contain additional information.</p> <ul> <li>Children’s Health Defense. <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/</a></li> <li>The HighWire with Del Bigtree. <a href="https://thehighwire.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://thehighwire.com/</a></li> <li> Informed Consent Action Network. <a href="https://www.icandecide.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.icandecide.org/</a></li> <li>National Vaccine Information Center. <a href="https://www.nvic.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.nvic.org/</a></li> <li>Vaxxter. <a href="https://vaxxter.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://vaxxter.com/</a></li> <li><em>Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers</em> by Neil Z. Zimmer [37]</li> <li><em>Vaccines – A Reappraisal by Dr. Richard Moskowitz </em>[38]</li> <li><em>How to End the Autism Epidemic by J.B. Handley </em>[39]</li> <li><em>Dissolving Illusions – Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History by Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk </em>[40]</li> <li><em>Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illnesses </em>by Dr. Thomas Cowan [41]</li> </ul> <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://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/4-billion-and-growing-u-s-payouts-for-vaccine-injuries-and-deaths-keep-climbing/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/4-billion-and-growing-u-s-payouts-for-vaccine-injuries-and-deaths-keep-climbing/</a></p> <p>[3] <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/index.html">https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/index.html</a></p> <p>[4] Moskowitz, Richard, <em>Vaccines – A Reappraisal</em>. New York, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2017. 241-242. Print.</p> <p>[5] <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483914/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483914/</a></p> <p>[6] <a href="https://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx">https://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx</a></p> <p>[7] <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB276" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB276</a></p> <p>[8] <a href="https://vaxxter.com/healthy-people-2020-and-the-decade-of-vaccines/">https://vaxxter.com/healthy-people-2020-and-the-decade-of-vaccines/</a></p> <p>[9] <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/health/vaccine-exemptions-fda-gottlieb/index.html">https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/health/vaccine-exemptions-fda-gottlieb/index.html</a></p> <p>?[10] <a href="https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/scott_gottlieb_elected_to_pfizer_s_board_of_directors">https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/scott_gottlieb_elected_to_pfizer_s_board_of_directors</a></p> <p>[11] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-normalization-of-corruption-big-pharma-takes-tobacco-tactics-to-a-new-level/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-normalization-of-corruption-big-pharma-takes-tobacco-tactics-to-a-new-level/</a></p> <p>[12] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-mandates-results-dont-safeguard-childrens-rights-or-health-how-did-we-get-here/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-mandates-results-dont-safeguard-childrens-rights-or-health-how-did-we-get-here/</a></p> <p>[13] <a href="https://www.nvic.org/cmstemplates/nvic/pdf/downloads/1983-2017-vaccine-schedules.pdf">https://www.nvic.org/cmstemplates/nvic/pdf/downloads/1983-2017-vaccine-schedules.pdf</a></p> <p>[14] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines-and-the-liberal-mind/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines-and-the-liberal-mind/</a></p> <p>[15] Moskowitz, Richard, <em>Vaccines – A Reappraisal</em>. New York, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2017. 29-31. Print.</p> <p>[16] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines-and-the-liberal-mind/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines-and-the-liberal-mind/</a></p> <p>[17] Moskowitz, Richard, <em>Vaccines – A Reappraisal</em>. New York, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2017. 31-42. Print.</p> <p>[18] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-impact-of-vaccines-on-mortality-decline-since-1900-according-to-published-science/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-impact-of-vaccines-on-mortality-decline-since-1900-according-to-published-science/</a></p> <p>[19] Humphries, Suzanne, and Roman Bystrianyk. <em>Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History</em>, 2013. Print.</p> <p>[20] Humphries, Suzanne, and Roman Bystrianyk. <em>Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History</em>, 2013. Print.</p> <p>[21] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/an-open-letter-to-nick-paumgarten-author-of-the-message-of-measles/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/an-open-letter-to-nick-paumgarten-author-of-the-message-of-measles/</a></p> <p>[22] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/toxic-vaccine-ingredients-the-devils-in-the-details/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/toxic-vaccine-ingredients-the-devils-in-the-details/</a></p> <p>[23] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines/mmr-vaccines-poison-pill-mumps-after-puberty-reduced-testosterone-and-sperm-counts/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines/mmr-vaccines-poison-pill-mumps-after-puberty-reduced-testosterone-and-sperm-counts/</a></p> <p>[24] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/failure-to-vaccinate-or-vaccine-failure-what-is-driving-disease-outbreaks/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/failure-to-vaccinate-or-vaccine-failure-what-is-driving-disease-outbreaks/</a></p> <p>[25] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/failure-to-vaccinate-or-vaccine-failure-what-is-driving-disease-outbreaks/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/failure-to-vaccinate-or-vaccine-failure-what-is-driving-disease-outbreaks/</a></p> <p>[26] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/worse-than-nothing-how-ineffective-vaccines-enhance-disease/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/worse-than-nothing-how-ineffective-vaccines-enhance-disease/</a></p> <p>[27] <a href="https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2015/09/14/the-ugly-untold-truth-about-the-pertussis-vaccine/">https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2015/09/14/the-ugly-untold-truth-about-the-pertussis-vaccine/</a></p> <p>[28]  <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines/measles-measles-everywhere/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines/measles-measles-everywhere/</a></p> <p>[29]  <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines/measles-measles-everywhere/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines/measles-measles-everywhere/</a></p> <p>[30] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/research_db/detection-of-measles-virus-rna-in-urine-specimens-from-vaccine-recipients/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/research_db/detection-of-measles-virus-rna-in-urine-specimens-from-vaccine-recipients/</a></p> <p>[31] <a href="https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/4/1/international2018">https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/4/1/international2018</a></p> <p>[32] Handley, J.B., <em>How to End the Autism Epidemic</em>. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2018. Print.</p> <p>[33] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/molecular-mimicry-understanding-the-link-between-vaccines-and-autoimmune-disease/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/molecular-mimicry-understanding-the-link-between-vaccines-and-autoimmune-disease/</a></p> <p>[34] Cowan, Thomas, <em>Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illnesses, </em>White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2018. Print.</p> <p>[35] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/research_db/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-food-allergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/research_db/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-food-allergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy/</a></p> <p>[36] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-safety/childhood-shingles-resulting-from-chickenpox-vaccination-rare-or-predictable/">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-safety/childhood-shingles-resulting-from-chickenpox-vaccination-rare-or-predictable/</a></p> <p>[37] Miller, Neil Z., <em>Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers, </em>Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Atlantean Press, 2016. Print.</p> <p>[38] Moskowitz, Richard, <em>Vaccines – A Reappraisal</em>. New York, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2017. Print.</p> <p>[39] Handley, J.B., <em>How to End the Autism Epidemic</em>. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2018. Print.</p> <p>[40] Humphries, Suzanne, and Roman Bystrianyk. <em>Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History</em>, 2013. Print.</p> <p>[41] Cowan, Thomas, <em>Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illnesses, </em>White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2018. Print.</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 Health Care CDC Mandates vaccines Davis Taylor The Continental Congress in a Nutshell https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/the-continental-congress-in-a-nutshell/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4c9b09f0-d641-af96-b5e7-52c0819a0a02 Tue, 01 Oct 2019 17:33:37 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/the-continental-congress-in-a-nutshell/" title="The Continental Congress in a Nutshell" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-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/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Much acclaim is given to the Continental Congress, which was populated by many eminent figures of the founding era. However, the body was unprecedented, extralegal, and virtually powerless. In this video, I explain why. Best Books on this Topic Murray Rothbard, Conceived in Liberty Clinton Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic Gordon Wood, Creation of the [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/the-continental-congress-in-a-nutshell/" title="The Continental Congress in a Nutshell" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-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/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/11/continental-congress-washington-promotion-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Much acclaim is given to the Continental Congress, which was populated by many eminent figures of the founding era. However, the body was unprecedented, extralegal, and virtually powerless. In this video, I explain why.</p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/qaE05E5rGrw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>Best Books on this Topic</strong></p> <ul> <li>Murray Rothbard, <a href="https://amzn.to/2B4d6Ga" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conceived in Liberty</a></li> <li>Clinton Rossiter, <a href="https://amzn.to/2RQX48o" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Seedtime of the Republic</a></li> <li>Gordon Wood, <a href="https://amzn.to/2Dk5Ng6" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Creation of the American Republic</a></li> </ul> <p>Podcast: <a href="https://www.soundcloud.com/dave-benner">www.soundcloud.com/dave-benner</a><br /> Website: <a href="http://davebenner.com/">davebenner.com</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="https://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="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</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 Dave Benner: In a Nutshell American Revolution continental congress Dave Benner What’s the Big Problem With Facial Recognition? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d6811a38-d920-bc87-8df0-e270fc8e5e74 Tue, 01 Oct 2019 12:18:04 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" title="What&#8217;s the Big Problem With Facial Recognition?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-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/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200-768x402.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200-1024x536.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200-1080x565.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200-980x513.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200-480x251.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a>The Oakland City Council recently gave final approval to an ordinance banning facial recognition in that city. This is part of a broader movement at the state and local level to ban outright or at least limit this invasive surveillance technology. So, what&#8217;s the big problem with facial recognition? There are plenty. In the first [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" title="What&#8217;s the Big Problem With Facial Recognition?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-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/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200-768x402.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200-1024x536.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200-1080x565.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200-980x513.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1200-480x251.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><p>The Oakland City Council recently gave final approval to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/oakland-city-council-bans-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an ordinance banning facial recognition</a> in that city. This is part of a broader movement at the state and local level to ban outright or at least limit this invasive surveillance technology.</p> <p>So, what&#8217;s the big problem with facial recognition?<span id="more-33500"></span></p> <p>There are plenty.</p> <p>In the first place, it&#8217;s just not very accurate, especially when reading African American and other minority facial features. It gets it wrong a lot of the time.</p> <p>This isn&#8217;t just theoretical musing. 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>But as ACLU attorney Matt Cagle said, this isn&#8217;t a problem that can be fixed by tweaking an algorithm. There are more fundamental issues with facial recognition. Government use of facial recognition technology for identifying and tracking people <em>en masse </em>flies in the face of both the Fourth Amendment and constitutional provisions protecting privacy in every state constitution.</p> <p>Berkeley, California, City Councilmember Kate Harrison is pushing for a facial recognition ban in her city. In <a href="https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_General/2019-09-16%20Agenda%20Packet%20-%20Public%20Safety.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">her recommendation of the ordinance</a>, she pointed out the inherent constitutional problem with facial recognition.</p> <blockquote><p>It eliminates the human and judicial element behind the existing warrant system by which governments must prove that planned surveillance is both constitutional and sufficiently narrow to protect targets’ and bystanders’ fundamental rights to privacy while also simultaneously providing the government with the ability to exercise its duties.</p> <p>Facial recognition technology automates the search, seizure and analysis process that was heretofore pursued on a narrow basis through stringent constitutionally-established and human-centered oversight in the judiciary branch. Due to the inherent dragnet nature of facial recognition technology, governments cannot reasonably support by oath or affirmation the particular persons or things to be seized. The programmatic automation of surveillance fundamentally undermines the community’s liberty.</p></blockquote> <p>Facial recognition puts every person who crosses its path into a perpetual lineup without any probable cause. It tramples restrictions on government power intended to protect our right to privacy. It <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">feeds into the broader federal surveillance state</a>. And at its core, it does indeed fundamentally undermine 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> Facial Recognition facial recognition Fourth Amendment Privacy surveillance Mike Maharrey Smoking Gun: Feds Partner with Local Police to Facilitate Warrantless Surveillance https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:f3e83a85-974d-00f5-6074-f9030f573ac6 Mon, 30 Sep 2019 17:01:23 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" title="Smoking Gun: Feds Partner with Local Police to Facilitate Warrantless Surveillance" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b.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/surveillance-stencil-1280-b.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Information uncovered by activists in Berkeley, California, revealed a web of cooperation between state, local and federal authorities as they secretly spied on a political rally. This smoking gun conclusively proves that federal agencies actively partner with local law enforcement to facilitate secret dragnet surveillance and indicates this is likely going on across the country. [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" title="Smoking Gun: Feds Partner with Local Police to Facilitate Warrantless Surveillance" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b.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/surveillance-stencil-1280-b.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/surveillance-stencil-1280-b-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Information uncovered by activists in Berkeley, California, revealed a web of cooperation between state, local and federal authorities as they secretly spied on a political rally. This smoking gun conclusively proves that federal agencies actively partner with local law enforcement to facilitate secret dragnet surveillance and indicates this is likely going on across the country.<span id="more-28750"></span></p> <p>Specifically, a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fusion center partnered with Berkeley police to secretly spy on a 2018 “No To Marxism in Berkeley” rally. Local law enforcement borrowed high tech cameras with facial recognition technology from the <a href="https://ncric.ca.gov/default.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Northern California Regional Intelligence Center</a> (NCRIC) and secretly deployed them in Civic Center Park in order to surveil the rally organized by right-wing groups along with expected counterprotests by Antifa. NCRIC is part of the nationwide <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">DHS Fusion Center Enterprise</a>.</p> <p>After <a href="https://oaklandprivacy.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oakland Privacy</a> uncovered information through open records requests, Berkeley City Manager Dee Ridley-Williams admitted the city borrowed <a href="http://avigilon.com/products/video-analytics/video-analytics/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Avigilon</a> hi-tech cameras from NCRIC to conduct surveillance on the rally. According to Oakland Privacy, these IP enabled cameras are equipped with advanced analytics including appearance search recognition and movement detection. An email obtained by the organization revealed that Berkeley police gave officers at the NCRIC log-in credentials for the cameras and therefore access to any footage collected during the protest. Oakland Privacy&#8217;s Tracy Rosenberg said, &#8220;With NCRIC’s <a href="https://ncric.org/html/Facial-Rec--PIA.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">robust facial recognition capacities</a> and <a href="https://ncric.org/html/Facial-Rec--PIA.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">close collaboration with the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force</a>, all individuals in, at, near or by the park or other parts of downtown Berkeley on August 5, 2018, should assume their identities are known to the Trump Administration and the FBI.&#8221;</p> <p>Activists discovered that the city borrowed cameras from the fusion center quite by accident.</p> <p>After a rash of gun violence in and near Berkeley&#8217;s San Pablo Park in August 2018, city officials <a href="https://tacdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/October-16-2018-Berkeley-San-Pablo-Park.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">asked to install security cameras in the park</a> under an &#8220;exigent circumstances&#8221; exceptions in the <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/04/city-of-berkeley-passes-ordinance-taking-on-surveillance-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">city&#8217;s surveillance transparency ordinance</a>. That law requires government agencies to get council approval before obtaining or deploying any surveillance technology. The exigent circumstances exception would have required a review of the technology within 90 days, but the city ultimately installed the cameras under an exception in the law that allows fixed cameras on city property.</p> <p>The city <a href="https://tacdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/spp-edgeworth-contract.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">contracted for the park cameras</a> with Edgewood Integration in January 2019, The Avigilon system is the same setup that was borrowed from the NCRIC.</p> <p>Fast forward to July 2019. As the Berkeley City Council was considering an ordinance to ban facial recognition technology in the city, <a href="https://tacdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/July1-email-staff-to-councilmember-harrison.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a policy recommendation</a> drafted by the city&#8217;s Information Security Manager, Tom Ray, suggested that the San Pablo Park cameras be exempted from the facial recognition ban. The document reveals that the CCTV cameras installed in the park use behavioral AI, which includes gait analysis, lip-reading, and voice recognition. The document also indicates that the system could use face pattern recognition. An October 2018 email obtained by Oakland Privacy confirmed that the city intended to use facial recognition with the cameras in San Pablo Park all along.</p> <p><a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/staff-email-on-cameras-10-18/" rel="attachment wp-att-28761"><img class="aligncenter wp-image-28761 size-full" src="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Staff-email-on-cameras-10-18.png" alt="" width="222" height="594" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Staff-email-on-cameras-10-18.png 222w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Staff-email-on-cameras-10-18-112x300.png 112w" sizes="(max-width: 222px) 100vw, 222px" /></a></p> <p>A second email between Berkeley Detective Joseph Le Doux and Jeff Couthren, an equipment tech at NCRIC, tipped Oakland Privacy off to the fact that there was already an Avigilonn system in operation <strong><em>before</em></strong> the cameras were approved for San Pablo Park.<a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/ncric-email/" rel="attachment wp-att-28759"><img class="aligncenter wp-image-28759 " src="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ncric-email.png" alt="" width="639" height="401" /></a></p> <p>Note that this email is dated Aug 2, 2018. The contract for the park system was not finalized until five months later. This email had to refer to a camera system in place before the acquisition of the San Pablo Park cameras. Oakland Privacy had no knowledge of any such cameras and they were never subjected to the city&#8217;s surveillance transparency process.</p> <p>On Sept. 17, 2019, Oakland Privacy <a href="https://tacdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/917-letter-to-berkeley-council-avilgon.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">sent a letter to the Berkeley City Council</a> suggesting that both the cameras in San Pablo park and the unknown cameras referred to in the NCRIC email should be put through the transparency process. In response, Berkeley City Councilmember Kate Harrison contacted the Berkeley the city manager, who told her that the cameras used during the August 4, 2018, free speech rally were &#8220;borrowed from the NCRIC.&#8221;</p> <p>Rosenberg said the actions of the city violated &#8220;pretty much every single word of the surveillance transparency ordinance.&#8221; Furthermore, the use of facial recognition cameras to surveil a political gathering is &#8220;exactly what abusing the First Amendment looks like.&#8221;</p> <p>The Tenth Amendment Center has long believed that federal, state and local law enforcement cooperate to create a national surveillance network, sharing manpower and equipment, and passing information back and forth through fusion centers and the broader 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>The federal government facilitates this network by providing grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices, cameras 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 ISE.</p> <p>The use of facial recognition on the Berkeley surveillance cameras is particularly troubling. 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>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>As the documents obtained by Oakland Privacy show, the Avigilon system Berkeley police borrowed from the fusion center and later installed in San Pablo park feature this kind of capability. Given the secrecy of the operation, we have to assume facial recognition data was collected during the rally and transmitted to state and federal databases &#8211;  all without a warrant or probable cause.</p> <p>This is a smoking gun that proves beyond doubt that our worst fears about the growing national surveillance state are a reality.</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 Funding Surveillance Berkeley dhs Fusion Centers Police Mike Maharrey Oakland Activists Pushing Efforts to Block Federal Militarization of Local Police https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/oakland-activists-pushing-efforts-to-block-federal-militarization-of-local-police/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:1f2f7ff3-632c-91a9-8887-ec7f904b0ecf Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:14:45 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/oakland-activists-pushing-efforts-to-block-federal-militarization-of-local-police/" title="Oakland Activists Pushing Efforts to Block Federal Militarization of Local Police" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2.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/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2-768x402.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2-1024x536.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2-191x100.png 191w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2-50x26.png 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2-75x39.png 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a>OAKLAND, Calif. (Sept. 25, 2019) &#8211; Activists in Oakland have ramped up efforts to take a first step toward limiting the impact of federal programs that militarize local police. American Friends Service Committee (AFCS) will host a community town hall on policing and military equipment in support of efforts to pass a city ordinance requiring [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/oakland-activists-pushing-efforts-to-block-federal-militarization-of-local-police/" title="Oakland Activists Pushing Efforts to Block Federal Militarization of Local Police" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2.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/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2-768x402.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2-1024x536.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2-191x100.png 191w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2-50x26.png 50w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/militarization-police-can-be-ended-2-75x39.png 75w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><p><strong>OAKLAND</strong>, Calif. (Sept. 25, 2019) &#8211; Activists in Oakland have ramped up efforts to take a first step toward limiting the impact of federal programs that militarize local police.<span id="more-33528"></span></p> <p>American Friends Service Committee (AFCS) will host a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/728603044220059/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">community town hall on policing and military equipment</a> in support of efforts to pass a city ordinance requiring approval by the Oakland City Council for the acquisition of military equipment, and use policies and reporting for military equipment that the Oakland Police Department has or obtains in the future.</p> <p>As AFCS points out, &#8220;Oakland has no policy for the acquisition or use of militarized equipment. Oakland PD can acquire and use military equipment of all kinds &#8211; anywhere, at any time, with no policy for its use or public reporting of what it has or how it is used.&#8221; The organization notes, &#8220;Several studies conclude police departments that acquire military-grade equipment are more likely to use violence and are no more successful in reducing crime.&#8221;</p> <p>An ordinance requiring council approval for the procurement of military equipment by law enforcement would take a first step in limiting police militarization in Oakland. As the AFCS noted, police departments often obtain military equipment from the federal government in complete secrecy. Requiring local government approval would bring the process into the open and provide an opportunity for concerned residents to stop the acquisition through their local representatives.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL SURPLUS AND GRANT MONEY</strong></p> <p>Through the federal 1033 Program, local police departments procure military-grade weapons. Police can also get military equipment through the Department of Homeland Security via the (DHS) “Homeland Security Grant Program.” In 2013, DHS gave more than $900 million in counterterrorism funds to state and local police. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon-funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”</p> <p>In August 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/28/executive-order-takes-window-dressing-off-police-militarization-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gave a push to local police militarization</a>. Trump’s action rescinded an <a href="https://www.bja.gov/publications/LEEWG_Report_Final.pdf">Obama-era policy </a>meant to provide greater transparency and oversight around the Department of Defense 1033 program and other federal resources that provide military weapons to local police.</p> <p>Passage of an ordinance in Oakland would create a framework for accountability and transparency for police militarization programs in the city. It would also create a foundation for the public to stop their local police from obtaining this type of gear.</p> <p><strong>COMMAND AND CONTROL</strong></p> <p>Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the founders. They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’</p> <p>In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”</p> <p>By making it more difficult for local police to get this military-grade gear and surveillance technology, and ensuring they can’t do it in secret, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships. Passage of an ordinance would take a first step toward limiting police militarization in Oakland.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>The community town hall on policing and military equipment will take place Thursday, October 3, 2019, beginning at 6:30 p.m. at the First Congregational Church of Oakland,<br /> 2501 Harrison St.</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> Activism Events Police 1033 Program Oakland Police Militarization Mike Maharrey James Madison on War as a Great Threat to Liberty https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/28/james-madison-on-war-as-a-great-threat-to-liberty/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:4b5bfd10-d6cf-a856-60f0-38a2c566dd62 Sat, 28 Sep 2019 23:16:18 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/28/james-madison-on-war-as-a-great-threat-to-liberty/" title="James Madison on War as a Great Threat to Liberty" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-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/james-madison-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/28/james-madison-on-war-as-a-great-threat-to-liberty/" title="James Madison on War as a Great Threat to Liberty" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-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/james-madison-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/james-madison-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p><em>Excerpted from Political Observations, 20 April 1795</em></p> <p>Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.<span id="more-28767"></span></p> <p>Those truths are well established. They are read in every page which records the progression from a less arbitrary to a more arbitrary government, or the transition from a popular government to an aristocracy or a monarchy.</p> <p>It must be evident, then, that in the same degree as the friends of the propositions were jealous of armies, and debts, and prerogative, as dangerous to a republican Constitution, they must have been averse to war, as favourable to armies and debts, and prerogative.</p> <p>The fact accordingly appears to be, that they were particularly averse to war. They not only considered the propositions as having no tendency to war, but preferred them, as the most likely means of obtaining our objects without war. They thought, and thought truly, that Great Britain was more vulnerable in her commerce than in her fleets and armies; that she valued our necessaries for her markets, and our markets for her superfluities, more than she feared our frigates or our militia; and that she would, consequently, be more ready to make proper concessions under the influence of the former, than of the latter motive.</p> <p>Great Britain is a commercial nation. Her power, as well as her wealth, is derived from commerce. The American commerce is the most valuable branch she enjoys. It is the more valuable, not only as being of vital importance to her in some respects, but of growing importance beyond estimate in its general character. She will not easily part with such a resource. She will not rashly hazard it. She would be particularly aware of forcing a perpetuity of regulations, which not merely diminish her share; but may favour the rivalship of other nations. If anything, therefore, in the power of the United States could overcome her pride, her avidity, and her repugnancy to this country, it was justly concluded to be, not the fear of our arms, which, though invincible in defence, are little formidable in a war of offence, but the fear of suffering in the most fruitful branch of her trade, and of seeing it distributed among her rivals.</p> <p>If any doubt on this subject could exist, it would vanish on a recollection of the conduct of the British ministry at the close of the war in 1783. It is a fact which has been already touched, and it is as notorious as it is instructive, that during the apprehension of finding her commerce with the United States abridged or endangered by the consequences of the revolution, Great-Britain was ready to purchase it, even at the expence of her West-Indies monopoly. It was not until after she began to perceive the weakness of the federal government, the discord in the counteracting plans of the state governments, and the interest she would be able to establish here, that she ventured on that system to which she has since inflexibly adhered. Had the present federal government, on its first establishment, done what it ought to have done, what it was instituted and expected to do, and what was actually proposed and intended it should do; had it revived and confirmed the belief in Great-Britain, that our trade and navigation would not be free to her, without an equal and reciprocal freedom to us, in her trade and navigation, we have her own authority for saying, that she would long since have met us on<a id="JSMN-01-15-02-pb-0520"></a> proper ground; because the same motives which produced the bill brought into the British parliament by Mr. Pitt, in order to prevent the evil apprehended, would have produced the same concession at least, in order to obtain a recall of the evil, after it had taken place.</p> <p>The aversion to war in the friends of the propositions, may be traced through the whole proceedings and debates of the session. After the depredations in the West-Indies, which seemed to fill up the measure of British aggressions, they adhered to their original policy of pursuing redress, rather by commercial, than by hostile operations; and with this view unanimously concurred in the bill for suspending importations from British ports; a bill that was carried through the house by a vote of fifty-eight against thirty-four. The friends of the propositions appeared, indeed, never to have admitted, that Great-Britain could seriously mean to force a war with the United States, unless in the event of prostrating the French Republic; and they did not believe that such an event was to be apprehended.</p> <p>Confiding in this opinion, to which Time has given its full sanction, they could not accede to those extraordinary measures, which nothing short of the most obvious and imperious necessity could plead for. They were as ready as any, to fortify our harbours, and fill our magazines and arsenals; these were safe and requisite provisions for our permanent defence. They were ready and anxious for arming and preparing our militia; that was the true republican bulwark of our security. They joined also in the addition of a regiment of artillery to the military establishment, in order to complete the defensive arrangement on our eastern frontier. These facts are on record, and are the proper answer to those shameless calumnies which have asserted, that the friends of the commercial propositions were enemies to every proposition for the national security.</p> <p>But it was their opponents, not they, who continually maintained, that on a failure of negotiation, it would be more eligible to seek redress by war, than by commercial regulations; who talked of raising armies, that might threaten the neighbouring possessions of foreign powers; who contended for delegating to the executive the prerogatives of deciding whether the country was at war or not, and of levying, organizing, and calling into the field, a regular army of ten, fifteen, nay, of twenty-five thousand men.<a id="JSMN-01-15-02-0423-fn-0015-ptr" class="ptr" title="jump to note 15" href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-15-02-0423#JSMN-01-15-02-0423-fn-0015">15</a></p> <p>It is of some importance that this part of the history of the session, which has found no place in the late reviews of it, should be well understood. They who are curious to learn the particulars, must examine the debates and the votes. A full narrative would exceed the limits which are here prescribed. It must suffice to remark, that the efforts were varied and repeated until the last moment of the session, even after the departure of a number of members; forbade new propositions, much more a renewal of rejected ones; and that the powers proposed to be surrendered to the executive, were those which the constitution has most jealously appropriated to the legislature.</p> <p>The reader shall judge on this subject for himself.</p> <p>The constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the legislature the power of declaring a state of war: it was proposed, that the executive might, in the recess of the legislature, declare the United States to be in a state of war.</p> <p>The constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the legislature the power of raising armies: it was proposed, that in the recess of the legislature, the executive might, at its pleasure, raise or not raise an army of ten, fifteen, or twenty-five thousand men.</p> <p>The constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the legislature the power of creating offices: it was proposed, that the executive, in the recess of the legislature, might create offices, as well as appoint officers for an army of ten, fifteen, or twenty-five thousand men.</p> <p>A delegation of such powers would have struck, not only at the fabric of our constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments.</p> <p>The separation of the power of declaring war, from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived, to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.</p> <p>The separation of the power of raising armies, from the power of commanding them, is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them.</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> James Madison War Powers Political Observations War Tenth Amendment Utah Committee Holds Hearing on Facial Recognition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/utah-committee-hold-hearing-on-facial-recognition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:6184d35d-4f3a-63c1-cde9-ef74baac47e2 Fri, 27 Sep 2019 18:16:54 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/utah-committee-hold-hearing-on-facial-recognition/" title="Utah Committee Holds Hearing on Facial Recognition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-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/utah-fist-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (Sept. 27, 2019) &#8211; Last week, a joint Utah legislative committee held a hearing on facial recognition technology, and legislators plan to consider at least two bills addressing the invasive surveillance technology during the upcoming legislative session. The interim Government Operations Committee hearing was prompted by a recent report by the [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/utah-committee-hold-hearing-on-facial-recognition/" title="Utah Committee Holds Hearing on Facial Recognition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-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/utah-fist-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/utah-fist-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p><strong>SALT LAKE CITY</strong>, Utah (Sept. 27, 2019) &#8211; Last week, a joint Utah legislative committee held a hearing on facial recognition technology, and legislators plan to consider at least two bills addressing the invasive surveillance technology during the upcoming legislative session. <span id="more-33523"></span></p> <p>The interim Government Operations Committee hearing was prompted by <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a recent report</a> by the Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology and reported by the Washington Post revealing that Utah was one of several states running facial recognition on it driver license photos. According to the report, the FBI and ICE have turned state DMV databases into the “bedrock of an unprecedented surveillance infrastructure.”</p> <p>According to <a href="https://www.kuer.org/post/legislature-wants-regulate-law-enforcement-use-facial-recognition-software#stream/0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a report by KUER radio</a>, the hearing revealed that the Utah Department of Public Safety runs the photo of every Utahn who applies for or renews their driver’s license. That amounts to around 2,000 photo scans per day and includes minors. According to the Center on Privacy and Technology report, along with the regular scans of new pictures, records show DPS also ran nearly 2,000 searches over a two-year period at the request of federal agencies like the FBI and law enforcement agencies in other states.</p> <p>According <a href="https://www.deseret.com/utah/2019/9/18/20872507/utah-facial-recognition-police-searches-driver-id" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">to the <em>Desert News</em></a>, &#8220;Since the Statewide Information and Analysis Center started keeping track in 2015, Utah has run nearly 3,284 searches for federal agencies, 357 for out-of-state police departments and 263 for local law enforcement. Over that time, federal matches were 5.6 percent, out-of-state 4.2 percent and local 19 percent.</p> <p>Harrison Rudolph works for the Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology and testified at the hearing. He said it was virtually impossible for a Utahn to avoid facial recognition.</p> <blockquote><p>“Opting out of face recognition is, simply put, not an option. Nor can Utahns wear a Halloween mask each time they step outdoors.”</p></blockquote> <p>Rudolph called for at least a temporary moratorium on the use of facial recognition technology in the state.</p> <blockquote><p>“This technology really demands that legislators consider a pause because of the serious risk that it invades folks’ privacy.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Unsurprisingly, Utah Public Safety Commissioner Jess Anderson defended the use of facial recognition saying, &#8220;We’ve never had any issues with it.&#8221;</p> <p>Of course, that&#8217;s likely because nobody knew about it. It&#8217;s not like DPS advertised its facial recognition program.</p> <p>Legislators will reportedly consider two bills to address facial recognition in the upcoming legislative session. One would put a temporary ban on the use of the technology. The second proposal would &#8220;create some structure around facial recognition.&#8221;</p> <p>According to the <em>Desert News,</em> <a href="https://libertasutah.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Libertas</a> President Connor Boyack suggested that if the legislature doesn&#8217;t impose a moratorium, it should at least impose a fee on federal agencies, limit the database to mugshots and felony crimes and establish a legal standard such as reasonable suspicion or probable cause to conduct a search.</p> <p>There is a growing movement to limit or ban the use of facial recognition technology and 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/2019/06/second-in-the-nation-somerville-city-council-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Somerville, Mass.</a> have all prohibited government use of facial recognition technology. The California governor has a bill on his desk that would implement a 3-year ban on the use of the tech in conjunction with police body-worn cameras. The New York Assembly is considering <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/new-york-assembly-passes-bill-to-ban-facial-recognition-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a bill to ban facial recognition in schools</a>. And a <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/michigan-bill-would-place-total-ban-on-police-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bill introduced in the Michigan legislature</a> would place a total statewide ban on police use of facial recognition.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>State and local facial recognition programs feed into a broader nationwide surveillance network.</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>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>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Local facial recognition bans eliminate one avenue for gathering data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</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 facial recognition Fourth Amendment Privacy surveillance Utah Mike Maharrey 4 Ways “Conservative” Groups are Awful on the Constitution and liberty https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/4-ways-conservative-groups-are-awful-on-the-constitution-and-liberty/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:569a27e8-429a-cbd0-52dd-7600a1e6be7f Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:01:21 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/4-ways-conservative-groups-are-awful-on-the-constitution-and-liberty/" title="4 Ways “Conservative” Groups are Awful on the Constitution and liberty" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719.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/2019/09/fast-friday-092719.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>What can we learn from a single email sent by a respected conservative organization that&#8217;s been around for more than 30 years? Quite a lot, actually. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: September 27, 2019 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/2019/09/4-ways-conservative-groups-are-awful-on-the-constitution-and-liberty/" title="4 Ways “Conservative” Groups are Awful on the Constitution and liberty" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719.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/2019/09/fast-friday-092719.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/fast-friday-092719-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>What can we learn from a single email sent by a respected conservative organization that&#8217;s been around for more than 30 years? Quite a lot, actually. </p> <p>Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: September 27, 2019<span id="more-33544"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/CuZebFtxtpg" 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="spotify: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://goldwaterinstitute.org/about/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">About Goldwater</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/08/12/dan-crenshaw-explains-talk-red-flag-laws-encourages-debate-emotion/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Dan Crenshaw Explains His Talk Of Red Flag Laws</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-15-02-0423" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">James Madison Political Observations</a></p> <p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Washington&#8217;s Farewell</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.samuel-adams-heritage.com/documents/samuel-adams-to-james-warren-1776.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Samuel Adams to James Warren 1776</a></p> <p><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_8_12s27.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">George Mason in Virginia Ratifying Convention</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.drjosephwarren.com/2015/03/warren%E2%80%99s-1775-boston-massacre-oration-in-full-text-our-country-is-in-danger-but-not-to-be-despaired-of/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Joseph Warren&#8217;s Boston Massacre Oration </a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/standing-armies-why-the-founders-wanted-you-to-own-military-style-weapons/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Standing Armies: Why the Founders Wanted You to Own Military-Style Weapons</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/c7d37dbd-c499-4f19-8138-eae58a6b9b4d" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="#" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/487075218" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1ypJdBywvjLKW" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+p167J9pZR" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B27AYwyhCyy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6583392835121348608" 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 The Opposition Conservatives Goldwater Institute Organizations Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 17:21 What can we learn from a single email sent by a respected conservative organization that’s been around for more than 30 years? Quite a lot, actually. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: September 27, 2019 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes | Google Pl... What can we learn from a single email sent by a respected conservative organization that’s been around for more than 30 years? Quite a lot, actually. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: September 27, 2019 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | Spotify | RSS SHOW LINKS: JOIN TAC Show Archives Subscribe […] Half-Trillion in One Month: Borrowing us into Oblivion https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/27/half-trillion-in-one-month-borrowing-us-into-oblivion/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:c6751c42-6a7e-0eba-0205-87cf7ff33acf Fri, 27 Sep 2019 12:26:29 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/27/half-trillion-in-one-month-borrowing-us-into-oblivion/" title="Half-Trillion in One Month: Borrowing us into Oblivion" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-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/drowning-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>The fiscal year budget deficit surged passed $1 trillion last month. Spending deficits necessarily mean more government borrowing and we’re seeing that in the numbers as well. Uncle Sam’s outstanding public debt grew by $450 billion in August alone. The national debt stood at $22.02 trillion on Aug. 1 and surged to $22.47 trillion as of Aug. [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/27/half-trillion-in-one-month-borrowing-us-into-oblivion/" title="Half-Trillion in One Month: Borrowing us into Oblivion" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-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/drowning-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/drowning-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/trump-budget-deficit-tops-2018-shortfall-with-two-months-left-to-go/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">fiscal year budget deficit surged passed $1 trillion last month</a>. Spending deficits necessarily mean more government borrowing and we’re seeing that in the numbers as well. Uncle Sam’s outstanding public debt grew by $450 billion in August alone.<span id="more-28754"></span></p> <p>The national debt stood at $22.02 trillion on Aug. 1 and surged to $22.47 trillion as of Aug. 27.</p> <p><img class="aligncenter wp-image-28755" src="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/US-Total-Debt-082719.png" alt="" width="613" height="475" srcset="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/US-Total-Debt-082719.png 613w, http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/US-Total-Debt-082719-480x372.png 480w" sizes="((min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px)) 480px, (min-width: 481px) 613px, 100vw" /></p> <p>As <a href="https://srsroccoreport.com/precious-metals-now-look-better-than-ever-u-s-government-debt-surges-450-billion-in-august/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SRSrocco noted</a>, the huge jump in the debt in August was partly due to the U.S.Treasury making up for lost time. The debt ceiling put a crimp on federal government borrowing earlier in the year until the <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/bipartisan-fiscal-suicide-donald-and-nancy-team-up-for-more-spending-insanity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan budget deal</a> reached in July suspended the borrowing limit for two years.</p> <p>This was the same deal &#8211; <strong>signed by President Trump</strong> &#8211; that will increase discretionary spending from $1.32 trillion in the current fiscal year to $1.37 trillion in fiscal 2020 and then raises it again to $1.375 trillion the year after that. The deal will allow for an increase in both domestic and military spending. So, the spending train keeps right on rolling.</p> <p>Maybe Trump should change his slogan to &#8220;Make America Broke Some More.&#8221;</p> <p>With the deal in place, the US Treasury announced it would issue $814 billion in new debt between August and December.</p> <p>It’s certainly off to a solid start toward that goal.</p> <p>Last February, the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/15/full-speed-to-a-fiscal-cliff-national-debt-hits-22-trillion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">national debt topped $22 trillion</a>. When President Trump took office in January 2017, the debt was at $19.95 trillion. That represented a $2.06 trillion increase in the debt in just over two years. The borrowing pace continues to accelerate, with the Treasury set to borrow over three-quarters of a trillion more in just six months. (If you’re wondering how the debt can grow by a larger number than the annual deficit, economist <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/the-federal-budget-mess-is-even-worse-than-reported/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mark Brandly explains here</a>.)</p> <p>The pundits in the mainstream media tend to focus on the Trump tax cuts as the cause for the surging deficits and growing national debt, but revenues are actually up. Trump spending is the real culprit.</p> <p>For the fiscal year (beginning Oct. 1), the Trump administration has spent $4.16 trillion. That’s up 7 percent over last year. Uncle Sam has already spent more this year than it did in the totality of FY 2018.</p> <p>This is one underlying reason that the Federal Reserve will almost certainly continue efforts to push interest rates lower. The federal government cannot sustain this kind of spending in a high interest rate environment. So far this year, Uncle Same has spent $379 billion simply paying interest on the existing debt. Imagine what that number would look like in anything approaching a normal interest rate environment.</p> <p>The out of control spending and spiraling deficits are concerning enough on their own terms, but they become absolutely horrifying when you consider that these budget shortfalls are happening during an economic expansion. You would normally expect numbers like this during a major recession.</p> <p>That raises an important question: <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/uncle-sam-is-spending-like-were-in-recession-what-happens-when-we-really-are/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">what’s going to happen when the recession hits</a>?</p> <p>Democrats will point fingers at Trump. Republicans will blame Obama, or make some similarly lame excuse. The truth is, they are all responsible. Every modern administration &#8211; both Republican and Democrat, have borrowed and spent us into oblivion. Unconstitutional federal actions cost a lot of money &#8211; whether it&#8217;s spending for the welfare state or the warfare state. The real question is who is going to stop 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> Current Events Economy national debt spending Mike Maharrey District Attorneys Run “Advanced Public Surveillance Networks” https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/district-attorneys-run-advanced-public-surveillance-networks/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:316e50d9-2623-5108-4e11-90ade81665b9 Fri, 27 Sep 2019 11:16:51 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/district-attorneys-run-advanced-public-surveillance-networks/" title="District Attorneys Run &#8220;Advanced Public Surveillance Networks&#8221;" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-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/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>The public trust has been betrayed. District Attorney&#8217;s (DA) are using CCTV cameras and license plate readers to create public surveillance networks. According to U.S. Legal, the definition of a DA is &#8220;to investigate alleged crimes in cooperation with law enforcement.&#8221; Not a single one of the 22 definitions includes running a public surveillance network. What is happening in [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/district-attorneys-run-advanced-public-surveillance-networks/" title="District Attorneys Run &#8220;Advanced Public Surveillance Networks&#8221;" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-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/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/shutterstock_95111584-surveillance-cameras-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>The public trust has been betrayed. District Attorney&#8217;s (DA) are using CCTV cameras and license plate readers to create public surveillance networks.<span id="more-33536"></span></p> <p>According to <i>U.S. Legal</i>, the <a href="https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/district-attorney/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">definition</a> of a DA is &#8220;to investigate alleged crimes in cooperation with law enforcement.&#8221; Not a single one of the 22 definitions includes running a public surveillance network.</p> <p>What is happening in Pittsburgh&#8217;s Allegheny County is not an aberration, it is fast becoming commonplace.</p> <p>Last month, <i>Lancaster Online</i> <a href="https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/surveillance-cameras-in-parts-of-pennsylvania-use-hackable-chinese-tech/article_00d0e402-c123-11e9-a99b-17f772ee5fba.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">revealed</a> that the DA&#8217;s office has created an &#8220;advanced public surveillance network.&#8221;</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The district attorney for Pennsylvania’s second-most-populous county, Stephen Zappala Jr. has assembled a network of advanced surveillance cameras in and around Pittsburgh and has enlisted colleagues in four surrounding counties to extend its reach into their jurisdictions.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p><a href="https://youtu.be/ZD3rimL4pDM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">This video</a> revealed that the DA&#8217;s office has real-time access to CCTV cameras, effectively allowing government officials to track anyone without a warrant.</p> <p><i>The Appeal,</i> calls it a <a href="https://theappeal.org/with-vast-surveillance-network-pittsburgh-d-a-has-created-a-dystopian-reality/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">&#8220;Dystopian Reality.&#8221;</a></p> <blockquote><p>“He’s created a dystopian reality in the county,” said Andy Hoover, a spokesperson for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “The residents are being watched at all times and it’s by some anonymous company that he won’t even name.”</p></blockquote> <p>Zappala’s office has spent $1.5 million over the past five years, much of it drug forfeiture money, on a network that includes more than 1,000 cameras and 350 license plate readers that capture and store millions of license plates a week.</p> <p>Turning a DA&#8217;s office into a public surveillance center is appalling.</p> <p>Andrew Ferguson, a law professor at the University of the District of Columbia warns that DA&#8217;s in <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/san-francisco-district-attorneys-10-most-surveilled-places" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">California</a>, <a href="https://whyy.org/articles/live-in-delco-and-have-a-security-camera-the-da-wants-to-know-about-it/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Delaware</a>, <a href="https://thelensnola.org/2019/02/20/public-defender-sues-city-for-records-on-surveillance-camera-locations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Louisiana</a>, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbell-camera-firm-ring-has-partnered-with-police-forces-extending-surveillance-reach/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Missouri</a>, <a href="https://home.chicagopolice.org/inside-the-cpd/pod-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois</a>, and potentially more jurisdictions have created public surveillance networks.</p> <p><b>Feds and judges help to expand DA&#8217;s surveillance network</b></p> <p>The <i>South Pittsburgh Reporter</i> <a href="https://www.sopghreporter.com/story/2019/04/09/front-page/surveillance-cameras-are-now-watching-brownsville-road/19745.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reveals</a> that the Feds and judges are helping expand the DA&#8217;s public surveillance network.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Councilman Anthony Coghill, District Magistrate Richard King, and state Rep. Harry Readshaw worked directly with the DA’s office over several months to expand the cameras to Carrick.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>With their help, they have expanded the DA&#8217;s surveillance network.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The cameras, which were installed at the intersections of Brownsville Road and Maytide Street and Brownsville Road and Nobles Lane, are part of a growing security network consisting of 1,400 cameras county-wide.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>The article also revealed that the DA&#8217;s office and law enforcement can use license plate readers to create a bread crumb trail of anyone.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The license plate cameras have the ability to capture the make, model, color, and plate number of every vehicle that passes through a checkpoint. The data captured by each camera is stored in a centralized database that can be used by law enforcement to create a breadcrumb trail for investigating criminal activity.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Using license plate readers to <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2019/07/police-use-license-plate-readers-to.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">&#8220;grid entire neighborhoods&#8221;</a> or creating a &#8220;breadcrumb trail&#8221; of anyone, goes against everything this country once stood for.</p> <p>Last year, Detroit&#8217;s mayor and the DA <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2018/01/businesses-forced-to-pay-police-to-let.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">forced businesses</a> to join their public surveillance network called &#8220;<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/detroit-activists-planning-event-to-protest-facial-recognition-cameras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Project Green Light</a>.&#8221;</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Since January 2016, about 230 businesses in Detroit have voluntarily signed up with the city to have Comcast Business install video surveillance systems inside and outside of their businesses that are marked with an exterior green light that&#8217;s meant to let would-be criminals know they&#8217;re being recorded.&#8221;</p> <p>Mayor Mike Duggan said the city will start with requiring the camera systems for bars, restaurants, gas stations and other businesses open between midnight and 4 a.m. during the highest risk time for crimes to occur. Then the city will move to businesses open after 10 p.m.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Their efforts to create a public surveillance network has been so successful that I dubbed Detroit, <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2019/03/detroit-to-become-americas-second.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">America&#8217;s second Chinese-Style surveillance city.</a></p> <p>A recent <a href="https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">report</a> by Comparitech revealed that DA&#8217;s and law enforcement have been so successful at turning cities into public surveillance networks that <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2019/08/american-and-chinese-cities-lead-world.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">America is now tied with China</a> for the world lead.</p> <p>DA&#8217;s creating public surveillance networks is utter madness, so what has happened to our justice system?</p> <p>The War On Terror has corrupted every aspect of our government and threatens everyone&#8217;s privacy.</p> <p><em>Editors Note: Some of the information collected through these local surveillance programs almost certainly ends up in federal databases. 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. </em></p> <p><em>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.”</em></p> <p><em>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.</em></p> <p>This article was originally <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2019/09/betrayed-district-attorneys-are-running.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">published at MassPrivatel</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> Surveillance Cameras Fourth Amendment License Plate Tracking Privacy surveillance jprivate Now in Effect: Ohio Law Legalizes CBD Despite Ongoing Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/now-in-effect-ohio-law-legalizes-cbd-despite-ongoing-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:5e1cc911-9a83-8b86-3736-6d5d93874a7b Thu, 26 Sep 2019 20:42:14 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/now-in-effect-ohio-law-legalizes-cbd-despite-ongoing-federal-prohibition/" title="Now in Effect: Ohio Law Legalizes CBD Despite Ongoing Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/cbd-gel-tabs-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/cbd-gel-tabs-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/cbd-gel-tabs-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/cbd-gel-tabs-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/cbd-gel-tabs-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/cbd-gel-tabs-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>COLUMBUS, Ohio (Sept. 26. 2019) &#8211; A law legalizing the sale of CBD in the state is now in full effect. This will not only open up markets in Ohio; it also takes a crucial step given the FDA’s continued regulation and prohibition of CBD. A large bipartisan coalition of senators and representatives sponsored House [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/now-in-effect-ohio-law-legalizes-cbd-despite-ongoing-federal-prohibition/" title="Now in Effect: Ohio Law Legalizes CBD Despite Ongoing Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/cbd-gel-tabs-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/cbd-gel-tabs-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/cbd-gel-tabs-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/cbd-gel-tabs-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/cbd-gel-tabs-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/cbd-gel-tabs-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p><strong>COLUMBUS</strong>, Ohio (Sept. 26. 2019) &#8211; A law legalizing the sale of CBD in the state is now in full effect. This will not only open up markets in Ohio; it also takes a crucial step given the FDA’s continued regulation and prohibition of CBD.<span id="more-33522"></span></p> <p>A large bipartisan coalition of senators and representatives sponsored House Bill 57 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/OH/bill/SB57/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB57</a>). The new law creates a licensing program for the cultivation and processing of industrial hemp. It also legalizes the possession and sale of hemp products, including cannabidiol and food products containing CBD. Under the law, “the addition of hemp or a hemp product to any other product does not adulterate that other product.”</p> <p>Last summer, <a href="https://www.ohio.com/news/20181102/tallmadge-health-food-store-keeps-cbd-oil-on-shelves-despite-state-ban" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ohio Pharmacy Board guidance</a> classified CBD as a banned substance in Ohio and held that the sale of CBD products was only allowed through the state’s medical marijuana dispensaries. Some stores in the state pulled CBD products from their shelves, although many defied the board’s ruling and continued sales. Enactment of SB57 paves the way for legal over-the-counter retail sales of CBD and cannabidiol-infused products.</p> <p>The Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/OH/rollcall/SB57/id/831227" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">passed SB57 30-0</a>. The House approved <a href="https://legiscan.com/OH/rollcall/SB57/id/889766" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an amended version 89-3</a>. The Senate concurred with the amendments on July 17. Gov. Mike DeWine signed the bill into law on July 30. Many provisions went into immediate effect and other provisions went into effect on Sept. 20.</p> <p>The explicit legalization of CBD and cannabidiol was crucial, not only to overturn the Ohio Pharmacy Board’s ruling, but also 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><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 will now be 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 rule-making 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> in 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>With the enactment of SB57, Ohio will not interfere with the 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 the Buckeye State.</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> <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> Uncategorized Mike Maharrey To the Governor: California Approves Measure to Allow Marijuana Business Owners to Deduct Expenses from State Taxes https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/to-the-governor-california-approves-measure-to-allow-marijuana-business-owners-to-deduct-expenses-from-state-taxes/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:2e3ecc2f-d4d1-3146-8ed1-2e2226079781 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 10:42:43 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/to-the-governor-california-approves-measure-to-allow-marijuana-business-owners-to-deduct-expenses-from-state-taxes/" title="To the Governor: California Approves Measure to Allow Marijuana Business Owners to Deduct Expenses from State Taxes" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832.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/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832-768x401.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832-1024x535.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832-1080x564.jpg 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832-980x512.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832-480x251.jpg 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a>SACRAMENTO. Calif. (Sept. 26, 2019) – Earlier this month, the California House gave final approval to a bill that would sever a link between state and federal tax law, allowing individuals to deduct expenses from legal marijuana businesses for state income tax purposes despite federal prohibition. Enactment of the bill would encourage the growth of [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/to-the-governor-california-approves-measure-to-allow-marijuana-business-owners-to-deduct-expenses-from-state-taxes/" title="To the Governor: California Approves Measure to Allow Marijuana Business Owners to Deduct Expenses from State Taxes" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832.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/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832-768x401.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832-1024x535.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832-1080x564.jpg 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832-980x512.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/04/bigstock-California-USA-flag-waving-i-58517501-1200-e1544055530832-480x251.jpg 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><p><strong>SACRAMENTO</strong>. Calif. (Sept. 26, 2019) – Earlier this month, the California House gave final approval to a bill that would sever a link between state and federal tax law, allowing individuals to deduct expenses from legal marijuana businesses for state income tax purposes despite federal prohibition. Enactment of the bill would encourage the growth of the legal marijuana market in California and further nullify unconstitutional federal prohibition of cannabis in practice.<span id="more-33452"></span></p> <p>Asm. Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) introduced Assembly Bill 37 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB37/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">AB37</a>) on Jan. 11. Under current California law, the state personal income tax code conforms to federal tax law with respect to itemized deductions and business deductions. Under the federal tax code, individuals cannot deduct business expenses related to trafficking specified controlled substances, including marijuana. As a result, legal California marijuana business owners cannot currently deduct business expenses from their state income taxes. With the passage of AB37, the IRS code governing expenditures in connection with the illegal sale of drugs would not apply to the carrying on of any trade or business related to commercial cannabis activity by a licensee. The provision would sunset at the end of 2025.</p> <p>While California marijuana businesses still would not be able to deduct business expenses for federal tax purposes, under AB37, they would be able to take deductions for state tax purposes just like any other business.</p> <p>On Sept. 4, the Senate <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB37" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">passed AB37 by a 33-5 vote</a> with some technical amendments. It previously passed the Assembly<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB37/id/871497" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> by a 69-1 vote</a>, and it concurred with the amendments by <a href="http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB37" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a 71-3 vote</a>. on Sept. 9.  It now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom&#8217;s desk for his consideration.</p> <p>Last year,  <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/09/california-governor-vetoes-bill-to-allow-marijuana-business-owners-to-deduct-expenses-from-state-taxes/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar measure</a>.</p> <p>In November 2016, voters in California approved a ballot measure legalizing marijuana for general use by adults and the law <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/marijuana-legalization-in-effect-in-california-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">went into effect on Jan. 1</a>. Enactment of AB37 would remove a barrier facing Californians who want to start marijuana businesses in the state by lowering their tax burden. This would further incentivize the market and allow it to expand despite continued federal prohibition efforts.</p> <p>Enactment of AB37 would also further mainstream marijuana businesses in California. Destigmatizing the marijuana industry will help it integrate more fully into the mainstream California economy.</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 marijuana in California removed a huge layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the world’s sixth-largest economy, something that will be extremely difficult for federal prohibitionists to overcome. FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By legalizing cannabis, California essentially swept away 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>California is one of a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit this year</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including 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 update laws and expand California’s marijuana industry demonstrates another important reality. Once a state puts laws in place legalizing marijuana, 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 bills represent more steps forward for patients seeking alternative treatments and further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.</p> <p><b>WHAT’S NEXT</b></p> <p>Gov. Newsom will have 12 days from the date of transmittal to sign or veto AB37 or it will become law without his signature. If the 12th day is a Sunday or a holiday, the governor has until the next working day to act. The governor will have until September 30 to sign or veto AB 37 if it is in his possession on the day the legislature adjourns,</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 AB37 cannabis Marijuana Taxes Mike Maharrey Uphold the Constitution, Bring Our Troops Home https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/25/uphold-the-constitution-bring-our-troops-home/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:135fff5e-e6bb-3a6c-cba5-73a6a025cf6f Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:09:31 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/25/uphold-the-constitution-bring-our-troops-home/" title="Uphold the Constitution, Bring Our Troops Home" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-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/minuteman-b-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a>We must realize the lessons of history and heed the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, before - as the ancient Romans eventually did - we’re forced to learn the hard way. <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/25/uphold-the-constitution-bring-our-troops-home/" title="Uphold the Constitution, Bring Our Troops Home" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-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/minuteman-b-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-1280-1080x608.png 1080w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/minuteman-b-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><p>Some sixteen hundred years ago, in the year 410 AD, barbarian armies under King Alaric captured the ancient city of Rome, ransacking and pillaging the center of the Roman Empire. The fall of the once-great capital sent terrifying shockwaves throughout the Western world, triggering Saint Jerome to lament that it was like “the bright light of all the world was put out.”</p> <p>Contrary to popular belief, no climactic battle preceded the fall of Rome. In fact, for years beforehand, Alaric and his Visigoths had already gone on a rampage up and down the entire Italian Peninsula, ravaging the countryside as they pleased &#8211; virtually unchecked and unchallenged. By the time this band of Gothic ruffians actually arrived at the gates of Rome, it seems that they simply walked into town.</p> <p>All of this relentless chaos raises a question: Just where exactly were the famous Roman legions to stop them? In one of the curious mysteries of fifth-century history, nobody really knows the particulars for sure. But one thing is certainly known &#8211; the Roman army was conspicuously missing in action. Decades of waging one expensive war after the next &#8211; its forces spread thin across the outposts of a vast frontier &#8211; Rome’s depleted military started to disintegrate.</p> <p>Many of these same conceptual conditions that led to the fall of Rome persist here and now in the United States. Our overextended military, constantly bogged down in new foreign wars, is straining the nation’s finances &#8211; while at the same time, pushing many of our battle-weary men and women in uniform to the breaking point.</p> <p>Something has to give.</p> <p>In an effort to reverse course, for years now, I have <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/west-virginia-committee-passes-bill-to-block-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">introduced a bill</a> in Charleston (West Virginia) that would prohibit our state’s National Guard units from being sent overseas into combat without an official Declaration of War from the U.S. Congress. For just as the Roman civilization experienced a breakdown, so too has our American way of life.</p> <p>Ours does not entail literal barbarians at the gates, but rather, in a more abstract fashion, the collapse of constitutional law. And perhaps nowhere is this radical failure in our rule of law more obvious &#8211; with more disastrous results &#8211; than with the issue of perpetual, institutionalized warfare.</p> <p>“Congress shall have power to declare war.” One modest line, but a provision our Founding Fathers carefully constructed. This section in the Constitution gives to the legislature &#8211; and not the executive branch &#8211; the exclusive right to decide when this country goes to war and when it does not.</p> <p>With this war powers clause, there can be little doubt of our Founders’ intentions, for this can be easily understood from their own words. Of these, none are better than those written by the Father of the Constitution himself, President James Madison:</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war to the legislature.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Regrettably, it has now been over 75 years since our Congress voted to pass a Declaration of War, and after suffering nearly two decades of endless conflicts &#8211; with one president after the next ordering our troops into foreign combat without proper authorization &#8211; this essential phrase has more relevance in our country today than perhaps it ever did in the past.</p> <p>Discarding this constitutional first principle that helped forge the backbone of our own republic has resulted in grave consequences. Thousands of American lives have been lost in unnecessary foreign conflicts, devastating our military families while fatiguing our country’s defenses &#8211; all while draining trillions from the pockets of taxpayers.</p> <p>In return, what have the American taxpayers actually received from this reckless spending orgy? Not much more than the backward reality of financing freshly-paved roadways through obscure villages in Afghanistan, while the main streets of their own hometowns are often so decrepit, they look like they belong to the Stone Age &#8211; a common fact of life both sad and absurd.</p> <p>For a nation already <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/trump-budget-deficit-tops-2018-shortfall-with-two-months-left-to-go/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">trillions of dollars in debt</a>, this staggering level of spending is unsustainable.</p> <p>We must realize the lessons of history and heed the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, before &#8211; as the ancient Romans eventually did &#8211; we’re forced to learn the hard way.</p> <p>Next January, I will re-introduce this bipartisan “Defend the Guard” legislation, proposing once again that the National Guard of West Virginia shall not be sent into combat in foreign nations without constitutional authority, just as the Framers intended.</p> <p>Fellow like-minded lawmakers in other states have now joined me, and in a coordinated manner, will bring this same legislation to their own state capitols across the country &#8211; to uphold this constitutional principle as required by the oath of office, and to support this effort to Bring Our Troops Home.</p> <p>If you agree, you can sign my petition at <a href="https://www.wvbringourtroopshome.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WVBringOurTroopsHome.com</a>. You can also urge other state delegates and senators to support this bipartisan “Defend the Guard” legislation which reaffirms our state’s authority and demands that the federal government honor our Constitutional rule of law &#8211; before bleeding more lives and money from West Virginia into the deserts of foreign conflicts.</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> Activism Defend the Guard War Powers National Guard West Virginia Pat McGeehan