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/ Tennessee House Passes Bill to Beg Feds to “Quit It!” https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/tennessee-house-passes-bill-to-beg-feds-to-quit-it/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:0cd609a6-0909-2469-cc37-8c15596483fa Wed, 14 Apr 2021 03:36:15 +0000 <p>Last week, the Tennessee House passed a bill to create a process to beg the federal government not to enforce unconstitutional executive orders. While supporters of the bill claim it will help them defend the constitution, passage of this bill will do absolutely nothing of the sort.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/tennessee-house-passes-bill-to-beg-feds-to-quit-it/">Tennessee House Passes Bill to Beg Feds to “Quit It!”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>NASHVILLE</strong>, Tenn. (April 13, 2021) &#8211; Last week, the Tennessee House passed a bill to create a process to beg the federal government not to enforce unconstitutional executive orders. While supporters of the bill claim it will help them defend the constitution, passage of this bill will do absolutely nothing of the sort.<span id="more-37056"></span></p> <p>Rep. Mark Hall (R-Cleveland) introduced House Bill 1120 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/TN/bill/HB1120/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1120</a>) on Feb 10. Even as introduced, the language wasn&#8217;t particularly strong. It empowered the joint government operations committee of the legislature to review <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/12/whats-the-deal-with-executive-orders/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">presidential executive orders</a> at its discretion. It could then recommend the state attorney general further review the order. If the AG deemed the order unconstitutional, the bill would have prohibited any state agency, political subdivision, or elected or appointed official or employee of this state, or of a political subdivision from implementing the EO.</p> <p>This cumbersome review process isn’t even necessary. The legislature already has the authority to review executive orders and prohibit their implementation for any reason whatsoever. In fact, the legislature could simply pass a bill prohibiting state enforcement of specific types of executive orders without any lengthy and unwieldy constitutional review.</p> <p>The state has the legal right under <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/04/the-anti-commandeering-doctrine-an-introduction/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the anti-commandeering doctrine</a> to direct its personnel and resources as it sees fit. It can prohibit the enforcement of federal laws or the implementation of federal programs for any reason at all. Tennessee could withdraw state resources from the enforcement of federal acts just because it’s Tuesday and there’s snow on the ground.</p> <p>But even this unwieldy process that likely would have never been used was too much for Tennessee Republicans. The House State Government Committee amended the bill and removed provisions ending the implementation of executive orders found unconstitutional by the AG. Under the proposed law as passed by the House, the process would remain in place, but instead of refusing to cooperate with the implementation of an unconstitutional EO, it would beg the federal government to stop it.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Upon review, the committee may recommend to the attorney general and reporter and the governor that the order be further examined by the attorney general and reporter to determine the constitutionality of the order and to determine whether this state should <strong>seek an exemption from the application of the order</strong> or <strong>seek to have the order declared to be an unconstitutional exercise of legislative authority by the president.</strong>&#8220;</p></blockquote> <p>In other words, Tennessee would beg the feds not to enforce the EO in the state or beg a federal court to declare the order unconstitutional.</p> <p>So bold.</p> <p>In practice, instead of refusing to cooperate with the federal government <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/07/the-blueprint-james-madisons-advice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">as James Madison</a> advised, the state of Tennessee will boldly ask the feds to quit it, please.</p> <p>The Tennessee House <a href="https://legiscan.com/TN/bill/HB1120/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed HB1120 as amended</a> by a 70-23 vote. I&#8217;m sure they&#8217;ll tell their constituents that they took a strong stand against the feds.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>Who cares?</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/tennessee-house-passes-bill-to-beg-feds-to-quit-it/">Tennessee House Passes Bill to Beg Feds to “Quit It!”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Federal Review State Bills anti-commandeering HB1120 Tennessee Mike Maharrey Arkansas House Committee Passes Bill to End State Enforcement of Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/arkansas-house-committee-passes-bill-to-end-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:b86a5df3-2ad5-701d-2c2f-55ad1bbf5b75 Wed, 14 Apr 2021 03:21:44 +0000 <p>an Arkansas House committee passed a bill that would take on federal gun control, past, present and future, banning the state from participating in the enforcement of a wide range of acts dating back to 1934.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/arkansas-house-committee-passes-bill-to-end-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control/">Arkansas House Committee Passes Bill to End State Enforcement of Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>LITTLE ROCK</strong>, Ark. (April 13, 2021) – Today, an Arkansas House committee passed a bill that would take on federal gun control, past, present and future, banning the state from participating in the enforcement of a wide range of acts dating back to 1934.<span id="more-37053"></span></p> <p>Sen. Gary Stubblefield (R) and Sen. Brandt Smith (R) introduced Senate Bill 298 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/bill/SB298/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB298</a>) on Feb. 8. The legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future “federal statute, executive order, or federal agency directive that conflicts with Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5, or any Arkansas law” relating to the right to keep and bear arms.</p> <p>On April 13, the House Judiciary Committee passed SB298 with no amendments. The Senate previously approved the bill by a <a href="https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Votes?id=SB298&amp;rcs=2518&amp;chamber=Senate&amp;ddBienniumSession=2021%2F2021R" target="_blank" rel="noopener">28-7 vote</a>.</p> <p><strong>DETAILS OF THE LEGISLATION</strong></p> <p>The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that conflict with the right to keep and bear arms under the Arkansas constitution and that would not be enforced by state officers, including but not limited to:</p> <ul> <li>The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.</li> <li>The Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq.</li> <li>taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;</li> <li>any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.</li> </ul> <p>State and local officials found in violation of the law would be subject to a $500 fine for each offense.</p> <p>The legislation includes a provision that would allow any person or entity that violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.</p> <p>SB298 also includes a second section that would prohibit state and local agencies and their employees from enforcing federal laws that infringe on other “enumerated rights” in the <a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/ar/arkansas-constitution-of-1874/#!tid=NFF99E1B0C89811DA90A7AE4DA09DA01A" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-et-has-event-already="true">Arkansas State Constitution</a>.  This section would likely have no practical effect because unlike the section on firearms, it does not define specific federal actions that would count as infringements. Somebody would have to make that determination before any prohibition on enforcement could go into practical effect.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Arkansas can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB298 will now move to the full House for further consideration.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/arkansas-house-committee-passes-bill-to-end-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control/">Arkansas House Committee Passes Bill to End State Enforcement of Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills 2nd Amendment Preservation Act Arkansas Federal Gun Control SB298 Mike Maharrey To the Governor: Maryland Passed Bill to Ban Warrantless Access to State Driver License Database for Immigration Enforcement https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-maryland-passed-bill-to-ban-warrantless-access-to-state-driver-license-database-for-immigration-enforcement/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:599d2dd2-805e-d2b6-9199-7a801d9bc255 Wed, 14 Apr 2021 03:20:22 +0000 <p>Under the proposed law, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) would be prohibited from disclosing personal information in its databases to a federal agent or federal agency for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement without a warrant issued by a federal or state court. The legislation would also prohibit any state agency, political subdivision, or state contractor from disclosing personal information or photographs of an individual to a federal agent or agency for immigration enforcement without a search warrant. This would effectively end warrantless facial recognition searches of the state’s driver license database by ICE.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-maryland-passed-bill-to-ban-warrantless-access-to-state-driver-license-database-for-immigration-enforcement/">To the Governor: Maryland Passed Bill to Ban Warrantless Access to State Driver License Database for Immigration Enforcement</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>ANNAPOLIS</strong>, Md. (April 13, 2021) – Yesterday, the Maryland House gave final approval to a bill that would prohibit state and local agencies from disclosing information in the state’s driver license and law enforcement databases to the feds for the purpose of immigration enforcement without a warrant.<span id="more-37049"></span></p> <p>Del. Dana Stein (D) introduced House Bill 23 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB23/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB23</a>) on Jan. 13. Under the proposed law, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) would be prohibited from disclosing personal information in its databases to a federal agent or federal agency for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement without a warrant issued by a federal or state court. The legislation would also prohibit any state agency, political subdivision, or state contractor from disclosing personal information or photographs of an individual to a federal agent or agency for immigration enforcement without a search warrant. This would effectively end warrantless facial recognition searches of the state’s driver license database by ICE.</p> <p>HB23 would also prohibit federal access to any state or local law enforcement database for the purpose of federal immigration law enforcement without a warrant.</p> <p>In 2013, Maryland created a “second-tier” driver&#8217;s license for undocumented residents. According to news reports, about 40,000 undocumented Maryland residents got these provisional licenses. Since then, ICE has used the MVA database to locate and deport undocumented immigrants. Passage of HB23 would require ICE agents to get a warrant before accessing the MVA databases.</p> <p>On March  22, HB23 passed <a href="https://legiscan.com/MD/rollcall/HB23/id/1034529" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the House 86-47</a>. The Senate approved the measure with some technical amendments by a 32-14 vote. On April 12, the House concurred with the amendments, sending the bill to Gov. Larry Hogan&#8217;s desk for his consideration.</p> <p><a href="https://www.marylandmatters.org/2021/03/23/state-and-local-leaders-push-to-limit-marylands-relationship-with-ice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">According to <em>Maryland Matters</em></a>, Stein said the bill wouldn’t stop ICE from doing its job. He said the proposed law simply seeks to prohibit the agency from using routine traffic stops and data collection for the express purpose of deporting undocumented immigrants.</p> <p>“This bill does not change the rules,” he said. “It’s responding to bending the rules by ICE.”</p> <p>In <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0303-crw-maryland-immigration-bills-20210302-vwd7tivk5nadjnvyqkmr3wiszu-story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an op-ed</a>, the <em>Baltimore Sun</em> called the ICE practice of using driver’s licenses to find and deport Maryland residents “morally unconscionable.”</p> <p>“It defeats the purpose of the intent of the 2013 bill: to keep our roads safer”</p> <p><strong>LEGALITY</strong></p> <p>Maryland’s ability to control its personnel and resources 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.</p> <p>The <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/tacdocs/The+Anti-Commandeering+Doctrine.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">anti-commandeering doctrine</a> is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. US</em> (1997) serves as the cornerstone. In it, Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p>Additionally, in the 1842 <em>Prigg v. Pennsylvania</em> case, the Court held that while the federal Fugitive Slave Act could not be physically impeded by states, they simply weren’t required to help the federal government capture runaway slaves and return them to bondage in the South.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>Gov. Hogan will have 30 days from the date HB23 is transmitted to his office to sign or veto the bill. If he doesn&#8217;t act, the bill will become law without his signature.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-maryland-passed-bill-to-ban-warrantless-access-to-state-driver-license-database-for-immigration-enforcement/">To the Governor: Maryland Passed Bill to Ban Warrantless Access to State Driver License Database for Immigration Enforcement</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Immigration State Bills anti-commandeering HB23 ICE Maryland Mike Maharrey Signed as Law: New Mexico Bill Legalizes Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-new-mexico-bill-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:da7eb50a-e258-9f09-c9ee-5bf85eadccab Tue, 13 Apr 2021 18:48:19 +0000 <p>Under the law, adults 21 and over can possess up to 2 ounces of marijuana, 16 grams of cannabis concentrates, and 800 milligrams of infused edibles. The law also allows home cultivation of up to six plants per person for personal use with a limit of 12 plants per household.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-new-mexico-bill-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Signed as Law: New Mexico Bill Legalizes Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>SANTA FE</strong>, N.M. (April 13, 2021) &#8211; Yesterday, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a bill into law legalizing marijuana for adult use in the state despite ongoing federal prohibition.<span id="more-36981"></span><br /> A coalition of five Democrats introduced House Bill 2 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NM/bill/HB2/2021/X1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2</a>) on March 30 during a special session. Under the law, adults 21 and over can possess up to 2 ounces of marijuana, 16 grams of cannabis concentrates, and 800 milligrams of infused edibles. The law also allows home cultivation of up to six plants per person for personal use with a limit of 12 plants per household.</p> <p>The new law creates a regulatory structure for commercial cultivation and retail sales of marijuana in the state.  Retail sales to begin will begin no later than April 1, 2022.</p> <p>The New Mexico House <a href="https://legiscan.com/NM/rollcall/HB2/id/1041760" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed HB2 by a 38-32 vote.</a> The Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/NM/rollcall/HB2/id/1042478" target="_blank" rel="noopener">approved the measure 22-15</a>. With the governor&#8217;s signature, the law goes into effect on June 29, 2021.</p> <p>The New Mexico legislature also passed a second bill (<a href="https://www.nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?chamber=S&amp;legType=B&amp;legNo=2&amp;year=21s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB2</a>) to automatically expunge criminal records relating to cannabis acts no longer illegal under state law.  People currently in custody for cannabis crimes will also be eligible for resentencing under the law.</p> <p>New Mexico becomes the 16th state to legalize marijuana for adult use despite ongoing federal cannabis prohibition.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>New Mexico legalized medical marijuana in 2007. The legalization of recreational cannabis removes another layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state even though federal prohibition remains in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><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 i</a>n 2019. New Jersey, Montana and Arizona all <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/04/thirty-six-and-counting-more-states-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legalized recreational marijuana through ballot measures</a> in the 2020 election and Mississippi legalized medicinal cannabis. Earlier this year, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/to-the-governor-new-york-bill-legalizes-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York legalize marijuana through legislative action</a>.</p> <p>With 36 states now allowing cannabis for medical use, and 16 legalizing for recreational adult use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations, or mandates down our throats.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-new-mexico-bill-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Signed as Law: New Mexico Bill Legalizes Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis HB2 Marijuana New Mexico Mike Maharrey To the Governor: Maryland Passes Bill to Limit State Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-maryland-passes-bill-to-limit-state-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:620d88b0-0f57-c12b-cec5-a981a2946e73 Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:05:02 +0000 <p>The proposed law would prohibit Maryland state and local law enforcement agencies from receiving or purchasing the following property from a military equipment surplus program operated by the federal government.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-maryland-passes-bill-to-limit-state-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/">To the Governor: Maryland Passes Bill to Limit State Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>ANNAPOLIS</strong>, Md. (April 13, 2021) – Last Wednesday, the Maryland Senate gave final approval to a bill that would ban state and local law enforcement agencies from acquiring certain military equipment from federal programs, an essential step toward ending the federal militarization of police within the state.<span id="more-37048"></span></p> <p>Sen. William Smith (D) introduced Senate Bill 600 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/SB600/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB600</a>) on Jan 29. As introduced, the legislation instituted reporting requirements law enforcement agencies must follow relating to the police-involved death of a civilian. During the legislative process, the bill was amended to include the provisions limiting the militarization of police <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/maryland-senate-committee-passes-bill-to-limit-state-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">originally introduced in SB599</a>.</p> <p>The proposed law would prohibit Maryland state and local law enforcement agencies from receiving or purchasing the following property from a military equipment surplus program operated by the federal government.</p> <ul> <li>A weaponized, aircraft, drone; or vehicle;</li> <li>A destructive device;</li> <li>A firearm silencer; or</li> <li>A grenade launcher.</li> </ul> <p>SB600 defines a “destructive device” as “explosive material, incendiary material, or toxic material that is combined with a delivery or detonating apparatus so as to be capable of inflicting injury to persons or damage to property; or deliberately modified, containerized, or otherwise equipped with a special delivery, activation, or detonation component that gives the material destructive characteristics of a military ordnance.”</p> <p>The House passed SB600 by a 98-39 vote. The Senate gave final approval on April 7 by a 31-16 vote. It now goes to Gov. Larry Hogan&#8217;s desk for his consideration.</p> <p>The proposed law would apply both to the well-known 1033 program, along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government.</p> <p>Maryland already has a law requiring law enforcement agencies to submit a report on the acquisition of military surplus equipment. While the enactment of SB600 would not end police militarization in Maryland,  it would take a solid second step and create a foundation to build on in the future.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL SURPLUS AND GRANT MONEY</strong></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/war-on-liberty-an-overview-of-federal-programs-that-militarize-and-nationalize-local-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Police can get military-grade weapons through a number of federal programs</a>, including the 1033 program, and via the Department of Homeland Security through the (DHS) “Homeland Security Grant Program.” The DHS <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/04/12/dhs-announces-funding-opportunity-fiscal-year-2019-preparedness-grants#:~:text=Homeland%20Security%20Grant%20Program%20(HSGP,of%20terrorism%20and%20other%20threats." data-et-has-event-already="true">doles out over $1 billion in counterterrorism funds</a> to state and local police each year. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon-funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”</p> <p>In August 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/28/executive-order-takes-window-dressing-off-police-militarization-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gave a push to local police militarization</a>. Trump’s action rescinded an <a href="https://www.bja.gov/publications/LEEWG_Report_Final.pdf">Obama-era policy </a>meant to provide greater transparency and oversight around the Department of Defense 1033 program and other federal resources that provide military weapons to local police. Biden will reportedly reinstitute the Obama policy, but it was nothing more than window-dressing. In practice, the Obama EO did little to stem the flow of military equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies.</p> <p>Even with the Obama-era limits back in place, the1033 program will remain essentially intact. Military gear will continue to pour into local police agencies, just as it did when Obama was in the White House.</p> <p>Even if you see the Obama/Biden limits as a positive, the multiple federal flip-flops underscore the importance of putting limits on police militarization at the state and local level. Federal policy tends to change depending on the party in power. Whatever limits Biden imposes through executive order can be undone with a stroke of the next president’s pen. The only way to effectively end police militarization for good is permanently withdrawing the state from these federal programs.</p> <p>Passage of SB600 would take a step to limit Maryland’s participation in federal police militarization programs.</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, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships. Passage of SB600 would take a first step toward limiting police militarization in Maryland.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>Gov. Hogan will have 30 days from the date SB600 is transmitted to his office to sign or veto the bill. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-maryland-passes-bill-to-limit-state-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/">To the Governor: Maryland Passes Bill to Limit State Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Police State Bills 1033 Program Federal Militarization Maryland Police-State SB600 Mike Maharrey Louisiana Bill Would Ban Enforcement of Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/louisiana-bill-would-ban-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:18c49d10-d1ff-4a14-298e-a4bc477ecb73 Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:47:02 +0000 <p>The proposed law would prohibit the state, its agencies and its political subdivision from "adopting a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the entity explicitly or through consistent overt action enforces a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation enacted that purports to regulate a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition if the statute,  order, rule, or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation that does not exist under the laws of the state of Louisiana."</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/louisiana-bill-would-ban-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/">Louisiana Bill Would Ban Enforcement of Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>BATON ROUGE</strong>, La. (April 13, 2021) &#8211; A bill filed in the Louisiana House would prohibit state and local enforcement of federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.<span id="more-36850"></span></p> <p>Rep. Larry Frieman (R-Abita Springs) filed House Bill 118 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/bill/HB118/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB118</a>) on March 15. Titled the &#8220;Louisiana Firearm Protection Act,&#8221; the legislation would end state enforcement of any federal gun control that isn’t covered by state law.</p> <p>The proposed law would prohibit the state, its agencies and its political subdivision from &#8220;adopting a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the entity explicitly or through consistent overt action enforces a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation enacted that purports to regulate a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition if the statute,  order, rule, or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation that does not exist under the laws of the state of Louisiana.&#8221;</p> <p>It would also prohibit the use of state assets, state funds, or funds allocated by the state to local entities &#8220;in whole or in part, to engage in any activity that aids a federal agency, federal agent, or corporation providing services to the federal government in the enforcement of or any investigation pursuant to the enforcement of any federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation regarding a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition if the act, law, order, rule, or regulation does not exist under the laws of this state.&#8221;</p> <p>The proposed law would create a cause of action to sue any entity or person that violates the law in state court. Any state agency or political subdivision in violation of the law would be subject to losing state grant funds the following year.</p> <p><strong>STRATEGY</strong></p> <p>While passage into law wouldn’t end all gun control in Louisiana immediately, it would represent a  massive shift in strategy going forward.  Once in effect, HB118 would immediately do the following:</p> <ol> <li>Ban state and local enforcement of any federal gun control measures on the books that don’t have concurrent measures in law in the state of Louisiana.</li> <li>Ban state and local enforcement of any new gun control measures that might come from Washington D.C. in the future that aren’t on the books in Louisiana.</li> <li>Shift the focus and attention to any remaining gun control measures on the books in state law.</li> <li>Encourage gun rights activists to work in future legislative sessions to repeal those state-level gun control measures as a follow-up.</li> </ol> <p>Each state-level gun control repeal would then represent a one-two punch, not only ending state enforcement, but automatically ending support for any concurrent federal gun control measure as soon as the state law repeal went into effect.</p> <p><strong>WEST VIRGINIA LAWS</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/louisiana/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">According to NRA-ILA</a>, under Louisiana law, there is no licensing requirement for ownership of rifles, shotguns or handguns.</p> <p>The ATF has a pdf document that lists and details all state-level gun control measures in Louisiana and would <a href="https://www.atf.gov/file/117241/download" target="_blank" rel="noopener">act as a handy guide for what could be repealed in the future</a>.</p> <p>The right to keep and bear arms in Louisiana is found in <span class="s1 overlaySource">Article 1, Section 11.</span></p> <blockquote> <p class="p1"><span class="overlayText">“The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.”</span></p> </blockquote> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Louisiana can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB118 will be officially introduced and referred to a committee when the state legislature convenes on April 12. It will need to pass the committee by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/louisiana-bill-would-ban-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/">Louisiana Bill Would Ban Enforcement of Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills 2nd Amendment Preservation Federal Gun Control firearms HB118 Louisiana second amendment Mike Maharrey Thomas Jefferson Born Today in History https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/13/thomas-jefferson-born-today-in-history/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:a300596f-d9a9-23c0-833e-07533c28c35c Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:01:14 +0000 <p>Today in 1743, Thomas Jefferson was born. A classical liberal that embraced decentralized power, Jefferson championed a distinctly American political philosophy during Virginia's ascension to statehood, the creation of the United States, and throughout the remainder of his life. Undoubtedly, he was one of the most successful statesmen in the history of the country.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/13/thomas-jefferson-born-today-in-history/">Thomas Jefferson Born Today in History</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>Today in 1743, Thomas Jefferson was born. A classical liberal that embraced decentralized power, Jefferson championed a distinctly American political philosophy during Virginia&#8217;s ascension to statehood, the creation of the United States, and throughout the remainder of his life. Undoubtedly, he was one of the most successful statesmen in the history of the country.</p> <p>Jefferson was a multi-faceted polymath. His mind was boundless, and he thrived in almost every realm he endeavored to pursue. He was well studied in many fields, including history, philosophy, law, music, architecture, and science, and considered Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, and John Locke as the greatest men who ever lived. An unwavering defender of natural rights theory, he famously wrote that “the God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”</p> <p>Jefferson may be best known as the primary penman of the Declaration of Independence, a declaration of secession against the British crown. The document enumerated a list of Parliamentary transgressions under George III, and acknowledged natural law and the right to alter or abolish one’s own government by force. Upon its acceptance by the Continental Congress, the former colonies were now free and independent states, each with the “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” </p> <p>In 1791, Jefferson wrote that the “foundation” of the United States Constitution was its embrace of federalism, which was made explicit in the Tenth Amendment. “To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress,” he wrote, “is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” Certainly, Jefferson rejected the apocryphal view that the Constitution was a “living document” which would be malleable at the will of the government.</p> <p>In his later years, Jefferson worked to maintain the federal model agreed upon by the states under the United States Constitution, and supported local nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. “He tirelessly attacked the Alien and Sedition Acts because of their blatant unconstitutionality, and penned the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force,” he wrote.</p> <p>By all accounts, Jefferson held disdain toward central banks and central economic planning. While the Hamiltonian economic plan called for a national bank, protective policies, and “bounties” (corporate welfare), Jefferson embraced free trade and unregulated commerce. In his first inaugural address, he announced that “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations” would be the cornerstone of his administration. He wrote that “The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right.” Jefferson also despised paper money, and recognized the destructive power of banks to print such bills. “Paper is poverty…it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself,” he wrote.</p> <p>Jefferson abhorred the notion that a small group of federal judges could decide of the constitutionality of every matter. In the 1800s, Jefferson went to war with the federal judiciary, which had been packed with Federalist activists from the Washington and Adams administration. Jefferson’s Republican faction impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase for his partisan activities on the bench. Still, he could not impede the predilections of his cousin, John Marshall, whose constant rulings in favor of increased national authority made him a thorn in Jefferson’s side. Jefferson wrote that a federal judiciary that held a monopoly over the extent of its own powers would be characterized by the “despotism of an oligarchy.”</p> <p>From his earliest days as a Burgess in Virginia, and despite owning slaves himself, Jefferson worked to curtail slavery where it existed and to impede its extension. In the 1760s, he proposed that individual slave owners should have power over slave manumissions rather than the bureaucracy of state government. In 1770, he worked pro-bono for a mixed-race boy, arguing that he had natural rights. Jefferson’s legal argument in this case noted that “Under the law of nature, all men are born free.”</p> <p>He strongly opposed the international slave trade, which he condemned in the original version of the Declaration of Independence. In 1784, he proposed a resolution that – had it not failed by one vote – would have prohibited slavery in every corner of the Northwest Territories. Fortunately, a similar measure passed in 1787. In 1785, he drafted the century’s most prominent anti-slavery work, Notes on the State of Virginia. </p> <p>In his own state, he wrote and championed legislation that would provide public education to slaves for the first time. As president in 1808, Jefferson signed the bill outlawing the international slave trade forever. Believing that all Americans, including slaves, were equally entitled to self-government, he came to support recolonization efforts that never fully materialized. Finding himself in the doldrums of debt as a spendthrift, Jefferson was never able to freed his slaves, but his writings certainly prove that he believed slavery to be an immoral atrocity.</p> <p>Jefferson’s vision for the United States held that “energetic” government was to be rejected in favor of republicanism and federalism. Despite modern political tendencies, he defended the notion that “the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government.” </p> <p>The states, he countered, were “the surest bulwark against antirepublican tendencies.” One of the most important Americans to have ever lived, Jefferson’s legacy is one to be celebrated by all generations and all ages.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/13/thomas-jefferson-born-today-in-history/">Thomas Jefferson Born Today in History</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> History Thomas Jefferson founders thomas jefferson Today in History Dave Benner We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Review https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/we-dont-need-no-stinkin-review/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:bdcac96e-8191-de2b-82e4-b88ad80bff65 Tue, 13 Apr 2021 10:51:03 +0000 <p>On the one hand, it's exciting to see states pushing back against all of the unconstitutional actions coming out of Washington D.C. But on the other hand, it's a little frustrating because these long, unwieldy review processes aren't necessary.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/we-dont-need-no-stinkin-review/">We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Review</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>We&#8217;ve seen a number of states considering bills to create a process to review presidential executive orders and end enforcement or implementation of those found to be unconstitutional.</p> <p>On the one hand, it&#8217;s exciting to see states pushing back against all of the unconstitutional actions coming out of Washington D.C. But on the other hand, it&#8217;s a little frustrating because these long, unwieldy review processes aren&#8217;t necessary.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">It&#39;s good to see some states taking action to resist federal power. But it&#39;s frustrating that so many of them don&#39;t know what they&#39;re doing. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/liberty?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#liberty</a> <a href="https://t.co/ksBjlp7c32">pic.twitter.com/ksBjlp7c32</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1379896763042033664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 7, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-arkansas-passes-bill-to-create-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">To the Governor: Arkansas Passes Bill to Create Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a></p> <p><a class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-montana-passes-bill-to-create-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">To the Governor: Montana Passes Bill to Create Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/12/whats-the-deal-with-executive-orders/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">What&#8217;s the Deal With Executive Orders?</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/dear-republicans-stop-begging/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dear Republicans, Stop Begging!</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/we-dont-need-no-stinkin-review/">We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Review</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Federal Review Maharrey Minute anti-commandeering Mike Maharrey Why the Founders Couldn’t Abolish Slavery https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/12/why-the-founders-couldnt-abolish-slavery/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:3dc32a16-0de8-b99b-a560-502115e4a84f Mon, 12 Apr 2021 21:24:05 +0000 <p>So before criticizing the Founders for permitting the states to allow slavery, we must understand the choice they faced: (1) tolerating a vile institution that was (then) dying anyway or (2) consigning the American continent to perpetual warfare at a cost of millions of lives and incalculable misery.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/12/why-the-founders-couldnt-abolish-slavery/">Why the Founders Couldn’t Abolish Slavery</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>This is the third in a series of essays defending our Constitution against unfair accusations from so-called “progressives.” The <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-left-is-wrong-the-constitution-never-discriminated-against-women_3633792.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">first</a> essay rebutted the charge that the Constitution discriminated against women. The <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-the-three-fifths-compromise-was-not-based-on-racism_3742894.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">second</a> corrected the claim that the three-fifths compromise was motivated by racism.</p> <p>This essay responds to incessant efforts to link the Constitution with slavery.</p> <p><strong>Why a Key ‘Progressive’ Claim Is Deceptive</strong></p> <p>“Progressives” base some of their case on that fact that perhaps 25 of the Constitution’s 55 Framers (drafters) were slaveholders.</p> <p>But this statistic is deceptive. The constitutional convention also included influential opponents of slavery. John Dickinson had inherited bondsmen, but freed them all. Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris, among others, were abolitionists. Even among the minority who held slaves, some, such as James Madison, favored gradual emancipation. There was much criticism of slavery at the constitutional convention, and only the South Carolina delegates offered even a tepid defense.</p> <p>Another reason the statistic is deceptive is that the Framers composed only a tiny slice among the 2,000-or-so Founders. The Founders also included leading participants in the constitutional debates, such as Noah Webster of Connecticut and Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania, as well as the elected delegates to the state conventions that ratified the Constitution. Relatively few of these people owned slaves.</p> <p><strong>Slavery Seemed Headed for Extinction</strong></p> <p>Why then, didn’t the Constitution abolish or curb slavery?</p> <p>One reason is that issues of “property” were seen as matters of state, rather than federal, law. A more important reason was that slavery seemed to be on the path to early extinction.</p> <p>The English-speaking peoples were the first major demographic group in history to abolish slavery—a fact the “woke” crowd always overlooks. This process was well underway when the Constitution was written. In 1772, the English Court of King’s Bench had decided<em> Somerset v. Stewart</em>, which banished slavery from the English homeland. Soon after American Independence, 10 of the 13 states abolished the slave trade and one (North Carolina) imposed steep taxes upon it. Several states also began general emancipation. Five granted the vote to free African Americans.</p> <p>That’s why constitutional convention delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut remarked that “the abolition of slavery seem[s] to be going on in the U.S. &amp; that the good sense of the several States would probably by degrees compleat it.” His Connecticut colleague, Oliver Ellsworth—later Chief Justice of the United States—predicted that “Slavery in time will not be a speck in our Country.” Tragically, they did not foresee the invention of the cotton gin.</p> <p><strong>Compromise Was Necessary for Unity</strong></p> <p>Still, it was clear that the elite in a few states were clinging to slavery and would not approve a Constitution that curbed it. South Carolina delegate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, “[I]f himself &amp; all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution &amp; use their personal influence, it would be of no avail towards obtaining the assent of their Constituents. S. Carolina &amp; Georgia cannot do without slaves.”</p> <p>The Framers were forced to conclude that a constitution curbing slavery could not unify the country and might even fail the nine-state ratification threshold.</p> <p><strong>Only Unity Would Prevent War</strong></p> <p>Why was unity so important? Because the probable result of <em>disunion</em> would be never-ending war on the American continent.</p> <p>The common cause against Great Britain tied together colonies that never had much to do with each other—but by 1787, this connection was unraveling. The Confederation Congress was widely ignored. Rhode Island and Connecticut were in a creditor-debtor spat that threatened resort to arms. Many spoke of dividing the country into several confederations, with some states remaining entirely independent.</p> <p>On the costs of disunity, European history was instructive. The previous 150 years had witnessed about 70 European wars (in addition to rebellions), and the results were horrific. The Thirty Years’ War, which ended in 1648, may have killed, directly or indirectly, as many as 8 million people. The War of the Austrian Succession (1740–48) resulted in perhaps half a million casualties; the Seven Years’ War (1756–63) caused perhaps a million.</p> <p>That was why Gov. Edmund Randolph introduced his Virginia Plan by emphasizing that the current system could not protect against foreign invasion, could not prevent states from provoking foreign powers, and could not prevent interstate conflict. To do that, a stronger government was necessary.</p> <p><strong>The Constitutional Debates Emphasized Unity</strong></p> <p>During the public debates on the Constitution, an important part of the advocates’ successful argument was the need for unity to avoid war. Although I <a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-original-constitution-robert-natelson/1026762475" target="_blank" rel="noopener">believe</a> modern writers rely too heavily on “The Federalist Papers” when searching for constitutional meaning, those essays do offer a good sample of the arguments for unity.</p> <p>John Jay, who had served as the Confederation’s foreign secretary, wrote in Federalist No. 4:</p> <p>“But the safety of the people of America against dangers from <em>foreign</em> force depends not only on their forbearing to give <em>just </em>causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to <em>invite </em>hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are <em>pretended </em>as well as just causes of war . . .</p> <p>“One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. … In the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole. … It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defense of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate, will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into three or four distinct independent companies.” (Emphasis in original.)</p> <p>But …</p> <p>“Leave America divided into thirteen or, if you please, into three or four independent governments—what armies could they raise and pay—what fleets could they ever hope to have? If one was attacked, would the others fly to its succor, and spend their blood and money in its defense?”</p> <p>In Federalist No. 5, Jay outlined the danger of warfare among the American states themselves, and in Federalist No. 6, Alexander Hamilton carried the argument further:</p> <p>“If these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. … To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.”</p> <p>In Federalist No. 41, Madison pointed out that European nations would intervene to turn American states against each other:</p> <p>“The fortunes of disunited America will be even more disastrous than those of Europe. The sources of evil in the latter are confined to her own limits. No superior powers of another quarter of the globe intrigue among her rival nations, inflame their mutual animosities, and render them the instruments of foreign ambition, jealousy, and revenge.”</p> <p>Madison summarized in Federalist No. 45: “[T]he union … [is] essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger [and] essential to their security against contentions among the different states.”</p> <p>So before criticizing the Founders for permitting the states to allow slavery, we must understand the choice they faced: (1) tolerating a vile institution that was (then) dying anyway or (2) consigning the American continent to perpetual warfare at a cost of millions of lives and incalculable misery.</p> <p><strong>Parting Shots</strong></p> <p>The “progressive” crowd attacks the Constitution in part because some slaveholders advocated it. But slaveholders were at least as prominent among the Constitution’s active <em>opponents</em>. By the “woke” crowd’s own reasoning, their criticism is tarred by antifederalist slaveholders such as Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee and North Carolina’s Willie Jones.</p> <p>Finally: The claim that the Founders should have abolished slavery at all costs—no matter how horrible the results—ill becomes those who accept, or even promote, evils such as street violence, government attacks on freedom, and infanticide. Such people should re-assess their own conduct before railing against the Founders.</p> <p><strong>This essay <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-why-the-founders-couldnt-abolish-slavery_3752667.html">first appeared</a> in the March 29, 2021 <em>Epoch Times.</em></strong></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/12/why-the-founders-couldnt-abolish-slavery/">Why the Founders Couldn’t Abolish Slavery</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Founding Fathers Founding Principles History Constitution founders slavery Rob Natelson Signed as Law: Wyoming Expands Constitutional Carry https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-wyoming-expands-constitutional-carry/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:42a670d2-fb25-ea45-a81c-0c10e0ad9f59 Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:20:41 +0000 <p>Under the old law, Wyoming residents could carry a concealed firearm without a permit. HB116 expands permitless carry by removing the residency requirement and allowing any person legally allowed to possess a firearm to carry it concealed in the state.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-wyoming-expands-constitutional-carry/">Signed as Law: Wyoming Expands Constitutional Carry</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>CHEYENNE</strong>, Wyo. (April 12, 2021) – Last week, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon signed a bill into law that expands “constitutional carry” in the state, further fostering an environment hostile to federal gun control.<span id="more-37030"></span><span id="more-36929"></span></p> <p>Rep. Bob Wharff (R) and a coalition of 22 Republicans introduced House Bill 116 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WY/bill/HB116/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB116</a>) on March 3. Under the old law, Wyoming residents could carry a concealed firearm without a permit. HB116 expands permitless carry by removing the residency requirement and allowing any person legally allowed to possess a firearm to carry it concealed in the state.</p> <p>On April 1, the Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/WY/rollcall/HB0116/id/1042889" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed HB116 by a 27-3 vote</a>. The House previously <a href="https://legiscan.com/WY/rollcall/HB0116/id/1030393" target="_blank" rel="noopener">approved the measure 56-4</a>. With Gordon’s signature on April 6, the law goes into effect July 1.</p> <p>The passage of HB116 underscores an important strategic point. Sometimes activists will oppose small steps forward  – such as permitless carry with residency requirements – arguing they don’t go far enough. But as states tear down some barriers, markets develop and demand grows. That creates pressure to further relax state law. Passing bills that take a step forward sets the stage, even if they aren’t perfect. Opening the door clears the way for additional steps. You can’t take the second step before you take the first.</p> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL GUN CONTROL</strong></p> <p>While permitless carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway.</p> <p>The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”</p> <p>Less restrictive state gun laws will likely have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce any future federal gun control, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts.</p> <p>State actions such as passing HB116 lower barriers for those wanting the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-wyoming-expands-constitutional-carry/">Signed as Law: Wyoming Expands Constitutional Carry</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Concealed Carry Constitutional Carry HB116 Permitless Carry Wyoming Mike Maharrey Alaska House Committee Passes Bill That Would Take First Step to Legalize Raw Milk https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/alaska-house-committee-passes-bill-that-would-take-first-step-to-legalize-raw-milk/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:0653f4fa-82cd-7f24-e5c6-c9fc41ad615f Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:19:31 +0000 <p>The proposed law would legalize raw milk shares through part ownership of livestock, commonly known as herd shares. Under the law, any individual willing to pay another individual for the upkeep of milk-producing livestock would also be able to share raw milk and other things produced from the raw milk of those shared animals.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/alaska-house-committee-passes-bill-that-would-take-first-step-to-legalize-raw-milk/">Alaska House Committee Passes Bill That Would Take First Step to Legalize Raw Milk</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>JUNEAU</strong>, Alaska (April 12, 2021) &#8211; Last week, an Alaska House Committee passed a bill that would legalize herd share agreements for the distribution of raw milk in the state. Passage into law would take an important first step toward rejecting a federal prohibition scheme in practice and effect.<span id="more-37002"></span><span id="more-36180"></span></p> <p>Rep. Geran Tarr introduced House Bill 22 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AK/bill/HB22/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB22</a>) on Jan 8. The proposed law would legalize raw milk shares through part ownership of livestock, commonly known as herd shares. Under the law, any individual willing to pay another individual for the upkeep of milk-producing livestock would also be able to share raw milk and other things produced from the raw milk of those shared animals.</p> <p>On April 7, the House Referrals Committee passed HB22 with 6 &#8220;do-pass&#8221; votes and 1 vote of no recommendation.</p> <p>Currently, in Alaska, it is illegal to sell raw milk to the public. It can only be sold to a milk processing plant, or for animal food.</p> <p>Passage of HB22 would take the first step toward legalizing unpasteurized milk in the state. While limited in nature, allowing raw milk distribution through herd sharing creates a great opportunity to establish a market, and will demonstrate and stimulate demand for raw milk. As more people engage in the marketplace, more people will learn about the benefits of unpasteurized milk. That stimulates demand. Simply cracking the door can begin a sort of economic feedback loop that will rapidly expand the market. When that happens, lawmakers will feel pressure to further loosen regulations.</p> <p><strong>Impact on Federal Prohibition</strong></p> <p>FDA officials insist that unpasteurized milk poses a health risk because of its susceptibility to contamination from cow manure, a source of E. coli.</p> <p>“It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed,” agency spokeswoman Tamara N. Ward said in November 2011.</p> <p>The FDA’s position represents more than a matter of opinion. In 1987, the feds implemented 21 CFR 1240.61(a), providing that, <em>“no person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized.”</em></p> <p>Not only do the feds ban the transportation of raw milk across state lines; they also claim the authority to ban unpasteurized milk <em>within the borders of a state</em>.</p> <p>“It is within HHS’s authority…to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well,” FDA officials wrote in response to a <a href="http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund </a>lawsuit against the agency over the interstate ban.</p> <p>The FDA clearly wants complete prohibition of raw milk and some insiders say it’s only a matter of time before the feds try to institute an absolute ban. Armed raids by FDA agents on companies like Rawsome Foods back in 2011 and Amish farms over the last few years also indicate this scenario may not be too far off.</p> <p>When states allow the sale of raw milk within their borders, it takes an important step toward nullifying this federal prohibition scheme.</p> <p>As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, an intrastate ban becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway. The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages the market and nullifies federal prohibition in effect.</p> <p>We’ve seen this demonstrated dramatically in states that have legalized industrial hemp. When they authorized production, farmers began growing industrial hemp, even in the face of a federal ban. Despite facing the possibility of federal prosecution, some growers were still willing to step into the void and begin cultivating the plant once the state removed its barriers.</p> <p>In the same way, removing state barriers to raw milk consumption, sale and production would undoubtedly spur the creation of new markets for unpasteurized dairy products, no matter what the feds claim the power to do.</p> <p>It could ultimately nullify the interstate ban as well. If all 50 states allow raw milk, markets within the states could easily grow to the point that local sales would render the federal ban on interstate commerce pointless. And history indicates the feds do not have the resources to stop people from transporting raw milk across state lines – especially if multiple states start legalizing it. Growing markets will quickly overwhelm any federal enforcement attempts.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB22 will now move to the <a href="http://www.akleg.gov/basis/Meeting/Detail/?Meeting=HRES%202021-04-16%2013:00:00&amp;Bill=HB%20%2022" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House Resources Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. It is scheduled for a hearing on April 16.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/alaska-house-committee-passes-bill-that-would-take-first-step-to-legalize-raw-milk/">Alaska House Committee Passes Bill That Would Take First Step to Legalize Raw Milk</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Raw Milk State Bills Alaska FDA food freedom HB22 Amanda Bowers California Senate Committee Passes Bill to Legalize Psychedelic Drugs Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/california-senate-committee-passes-bill-to-legalize-psychedelic-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:42600238-8eb3-4a23-4a16-8445b55fc597 Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:17:47 +0000 <p>The legislation would make lawful the possession and personal use of the following substances by adults 21 and over....</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/california-senate-committee-passes-bill-to-legalize-psychedelic-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/">California Senate Committee Passes Bill to Legalize Psychedelic Drugs Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>SACRAMENTO</strong>, Calif. (April 12, 2021) – Last week, a California Senate committee passed a bill that would legalize possession of several psychedelic drugs including LSD and “magic mushrooms” despite federal prohibition on the same.<span id="more-37036"></span></p> <p>Sen. Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco) introduced Senate Bill 519 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB519/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB519</a>) on Feb. 17. The legislation would make lawful the possession and personal use of the following substances by adults 21 and over.</p> <ul> <li>psilocybin</li> <li>psilocyn</li> <li>MDMA</li> <li>LSD</li> <li>ketamine</li> <li>DMT</li> <li>mescaline (excluding peyote)</li> <li>ibogaine</li> </ul> <p>Under the proposed law “social sharing” of these substances would be legal.</p> <p>On April 6, the Senate Committee on Public Safety <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB519/id/1046204" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed SB519 by a 4-1 vote</a>.</p> <p>SB519 includes expungement provisions that would dismiss and seal pending and prior convictions for offenses that would be made lawful by the passage of the bill.</p> <p>“Policy should be based on science and common sense, not fear and stigma,” Wiener said in a press release. “The War on Drugs and mass incarceration are destructive and failed policies, and we must end them. Moreover, given the severity of our mental health crisis, we shouldn’t be criminalizing people for using drugs that have shown significant promise in treating mental health conditions.”</p> <p>The introduction of SB519 follows <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/oregon-votes-to-decriminalize-cocaine-heroin-and-other-hard-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a successful ballot measure that decriminalized a number of drugs, including heroin and cocaine in Oregon</a>.</p> <p>Last year, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/ann-arbor-becomes-third-city-to-decriminalize-psilocybin-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ann Arbor became the third city in the U.S. to decriminalize “magic mushrooms.”</a> Oakland and Denver have also effectively decriminalized psilocybin – a substance hallucinogenic substance found in certain mushrooms.  A number of studies have shown psilocybin to be effective in the treatment of depression, PTSD, chronic pain and addiction. For instance, <a href="https://maps.org/other-psychedelic-research/211-psilocybin-research/psilocybin-studies-in-progress/1268-johns_hopkins_study_of_psilocybin_in_cancer_patients" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a Johns Hopkins study</a> found that “psilocybin produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer.”</p> <p>Decriminalization efforts at the state and local level are moving forward despite the federal government’s prohibition of these various substances.</p> <p><b>LEGALITY</b></p> <p>Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains the complete prohibition of many of the drugs on SB519’s decriminalization list and heavily regulates others. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate such substances within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>In effect, the passage of SB519 would end criminal enforcement of laws prohibiting the possession of these drugs in California. As we’ve seen with marijuana and hemp, when states and localities stop enforcing laws banning a substance, the federal government finds it virtually impossible to maintain prohibition. For instance, FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By curtailing or ending state prohibition, states sweep part of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly annual budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution either. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state and local assistance, and the same will likely hold true with other drugs.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB519 will now move to the <a href="https://shea.senate.ca.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senate Committee on Health</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/california-senate-committee-passes-bill-to-legalize-psychedelic-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/">California Senate Committee Passes Bill to Legalize Psychedelic Drugs Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills California drugs psilocybin SB519 Mike Maharrey Signed as Law: Tennessee Enacts “Constitutional Carry” https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-tennessee-enacts-constitutional-carry/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f983b495-7bbb-3175-59ff-95e7134f5794 Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:16:36 +0000 <p>The new law allows adults 21 and older who can legally possess a firearm in the state to carry a handgun concealed or openly without a state-issued license. Members of the military 18 to 20 can also carry without a permit under the new law. The current licensing program will remain in effect for those wishing to carry concealed in states with reciprocity with Tennessee.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-tennessee-enacts-constitutional-carry/">Signed as Law: Tennessee Enacts “Constitutional Carry”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>NASHVILLE</strong>, Tenn. (April 12, 2021) &#8211; Last week, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed a &#8220;constitutional carry&#8221; bill into law making it legal to carry a concealed firearm without a license, and foster an environment hostile to federal gun control in Tennessee.<span id="more-37029"></span></p> <p>Sen. Jack Johnson (R-Brentwood), along with four fellow Republicans, introduced Senate Bill 765 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/TN/bill/SB0765/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB765</a>) on Feb. 9. Rep. William Lamberth (R-Portland) sponsored a companion bill (<a href="https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0786&amp;GA=112" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB786</a>) in the House. The new law allows adults 21 and older who can legally possess a firearm in the state to carry a handgun concealed or openly without a state-issued license. Members of the military 18 to 20 can also carry without a permit under the new law. The current licensing program will remain in effect for those wishing to carry concealed in states with reciprocity with Tennessee.</p> <p>Despite intense opposition by law enforcement lobbyists, <a href="https://legiscan.com/TN/rollcall/SB0765/id/1032462" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB765 passed the Senate 23-9</a>. The <a href="https://legiscan.com/TN/rollcall/SB0765/id/1032462" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House approved the measure 64-29</a>. With Gov. Lee&#8217;s signature, the new law will go into effect July 1.</p> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL GUN CONTROL</strong></p> <p>While permitless carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway.</p> <p>The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”</p> <p>Less restrictive state gun laws will likely have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce any future federal gun control, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts.</p> <p>State actions such as passing SB765 will lower barriers for those wanting the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-tennessee-enacts-constitutional-carry/">Signed as Law: Tennessee Enacts “Constitutional Carry”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Constitutional Carry firearms Permitless Carry SB765 second amendment Tennessee Mike Maharrey Alabama Senate Committee Passes Bill to Take on Future Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/alabama-senate-committee-passes-bill-to-take-on-future-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d721d02a-a5dc-aafd-8a94-85a99973e9fe Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:14:17 +0000 <p>The legislation would prohibit state and local enforcement of future federal gun control by banning the allocation of any state or local funds, and prohibiting the use of state property “for the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any executive order, or directive issued by the President of the United States or an act of the United States Congress that becomes effective after January 1, 2021, that regulates the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories." It would also prohibit any appointed or elected official, officer, employee, or agent of the state, or any political subdivision of the state from enforcing the same.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/alabama-senate-committee-passes-bill-to-take-on-future-federal-gun-control/">Alabama Senate Committee Passes Bill to Take on Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>MONTGOMERY</strong>, Ala. (April 12, 2021) &#8211; On Tuesday, an Alabama Senate Committee passed a bill that would set the foundation to end enforcement of future federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward neutering future federal gun laws in Alabama.<span id="more-37015"></span></p> <p>Sen. Gerald Allen (R) introduced Senate Bill 358 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/SB358/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB358</a>) on March 30. The legislation would prohibit state and local enforcement of future federal gun control by banning the allocation of any state or local funds, and prohibiting the use of state property “for the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any executive order, or directive issued by the President of the United States or an act of the United States Congress that becomes effective after January 1, 2021, that regulates the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories.&#8221; It would also prohibit any appointed or elected official, officer, employee, or agent of the state, or any political subdivision of the state from enforcing the same.</p> <p>Any state or local agent who knowingly violate the law would face misdemeanor charges.</p> <p>SB358 includes provisions to create a process for Alabama residents to file a complaint against any state or local agency in violation of the law with the attorney general. The process includes civil penalties against the violating agency.</p> <p>On April 7, the SenateGovernmental Affairs Committee passed SB358 by a 6-2 vote.</p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/alabama-house-committee-passes-bill-to-end-federal-gun-control-enforcement/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A more sweeping bill</a> that would take on gun control past, present and future (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/HB157/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB157</a>) passed a House committee on March 10, but it has yet to be brought to the House floor for a vote.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Alabama can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB358 will now move to the Senate Floor for further consideration.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/alabama-senate-committee-passes-bill-to-take-on-future-federal-gun-control/">Alabama Senate Committee Passes Bill to Take on Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills 2nd Amendment Preservation Act Alabama Federal Gun Control firearms SB358 second amendment Mike Maharrey Oregon House Passes Bill to Limit State Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/oregon-house-passes-bill-to-limit-state-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3187a841-6457-84de-aa07-71a60b57570f Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:58:21 +0000 <p>The legislation would ban state and local law enforcement agencies from receiving certain equipment from military surplus programs operated by the federal government. It would also increase oversight and transparency for the acquisition of allowable equipment.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/oregon-house-passes-bill-to-limit-state-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/">Oregon House Passes Bill to Limit State Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>SALEM</strong>, Ore. (April 12, 2021) – Last Friday, the Oregon House passed a bill that would ban state and local law enforcement agencies from acquiring certain military equipment from federal programs and place other limits on police militarization.<span id="more-37031"></span><span id="more-36822"></span></p> <p>Rep. Karin Power (D-Milwaukie) and Rep. Julianne Fahey (D-West Eugene) filed House Bill 2481 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/OR/bill/HB2481/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2481</a>) on Jan. 11. The legislation would ban state and local law enforcement agencies from receiving certain equipment from military surplus programs operated by the federal government. It would also increase oversight and transparency for the acquisition of allowable equipment.</p> <p>HB2481 would ban the following:</p> <ul> <li>Unmanned aircraft systems that are armored or weaponized</li> <li>Aircraft that are combat-configured or combat-coded</li> <li>Grenades or similar explosives, or grenade launchers</li> <li>Firearms silencers</li> </ul> <p>On April 9, the <a href="https://legiscan.com/OR/rollcall/HB2481/id/1049905" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House passed HB2481 by a 39-9 vote</a>.</p> <p>As introduced, the bill would have all barred acquisition of mine-resistant vehicles, unmanned ground vehicles, or militarized combat, assault, or armored vehicles. That provision was removed by the House Judiciary Committee.</p> <p>HB2481 would prohibit law enforcement agencies from using federal funds to purchase allowable equipment from military surplus programs. They would be required to use state or local funds. It would also require a law enforcement agency to get written permission from their local governing body before acquiring allowable equipment.</p> <p>The legislation includes provisions to increase transparency. Police departments requesting allowable equipment from federal military surplus programs would be required to publish notice of the request on a publicly accessible website within 14 days after the request.</p> <p>The legislation applies both to the well-known 1033 program, along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government.</p> <p>While passage of HB2481 wouldn’t end the militarization of Oregon police departments, it would keep some dangerous weapons out of the hands of police officers set the stage for further limits in the future.</p> <p>Police departments often obtain military and surveillance equipment from the federal government in complete secrecy. Requiring public disclosure of all requests for military gear, banning federal funding, and requiring written permission for local governing bodies 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><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/war-on-liberty-an-overview-of-federal-programs-that-militarize-and-nationalize-local-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Police can get military-grade weapons through a number of federal programs</a>, including the 1033 program, and via the Department of Homeland Security through the (DHS) “Homeland Security Grant Program.” The DHS <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/04/12/dhs-announces-funding-opportunity-fiscal-year-2019-preparedness-grants#:~:text=Homeland%20Security%20Grant%20Program%20(HSGP,of%20terrorism%20and%20other%20threats." data-et-has-event-already="true">doles out over $1 billion in counterterrorism funds</a> to state and local police each year. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon-funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”</p> <p>In August 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/28/executive-order-takes-window-dressing-off-police-militarization-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gave a push to local police militarization</a>. Trump’s action rescinded an <a href="https://www.bja.gov/publications/LEEWG_Report_Final.pdf">Obama-era policy </a>meant to provide greater transparency and oversight around the Department of Defense 1033 program and other federal resources that provide military weapons to local police. Biden will reportedly reinstitute the Obama policy, but it was nothing more than window-dressing. In practice, the Obama EO did little to stem the flow of military equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies.</p> <p>Even with the Obama-era limits back in place, the 1033 program will remain essentially intact. Military gear will continue to pour into local police agencies, just as it did when Obama was in the White House.</p> <p>Even if you see the Obama/Biden limits as a positive, the multiple federal flip-flops underscore the importance of putting limits on police militarization at the state and local level. Federal policy tends to change depending on the party in power. Whatever limits Biden imposes through executive order can be undone with a stroke of the next president’s pen. The only way to effectively end police militarization for good is permanently withdrawing the state from these federal programs.</p> <p>Passage of HB2481 would limit Oregon’s participation in federal police militarization programs and create a framework of transparency. It would also create a foundation for the public to stop their local police from obtaining this type of gear.</p> <p><strong>COMMAND AND CONTROL</strong></p> <p>Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the founders. They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’</p> <p>In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”</p> <p>By making it more difficult for local police to get this military-grade gear and surveillance technology, and ensuring they can’t do it in secret, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships. The passage of HB2481 would take a first step toward limiting police militarization in Oregon.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB2481 will now move to the Senate for further consideration. At the time of this report, it had not been referred to a Senate committee. Once it receives a committee assignment, the bill must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/oregon-house-passes-bill-to-limit-state-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/">Oregon House Passes Bill to Limit State Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Police State Bills 1033 Program HB2481 Oregon Police Militarization Police-State Mike Maharrey Top-4‌ ‌Excuses‌ ‌for‌ ‌Rejecting‌ ‌Nullification‌ https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/top-4%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cexcuses%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cfor%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8crejecting%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cnullification%e2%80%8c/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:e44f98cc-17a9-33ed-19f5-f3f78fe0a5e4 Mon, 12 Apr 2021 17:35:23 +0000 <p>We hear them all the time - from the left and right - and even some libertarians too. On this episode, learn the most common excuses for rejecting or just avoiding nullification, all based on fear. Plus, some timeless responses from Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams and James Otis, Jr.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/top-4%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cexcuses%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cfor%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8crejecting%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cnullification%e2%80%8c/">Top-4‌ ‌Excuses‌ ‌for‌ ‌Rejecting‌ ‌Nullification‌</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>We hear them all the time &#8211; from the left and right &#8211; and even some libertarians too. On this episode, learn the most common excuses for rejecting or just avoiding nullification, all based on fear. Plus, some timeless responses from Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams and James Otis, Jr.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: April 12, 2021 <span id="more-37032"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/XAY18cwns3k?start=107" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/04/top-five-lies-about-nullification-good-morning-liberty-04-24-19/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Top Five Lies About Nullification</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/garbage-in-garbage-out-bad-foundations-are-dangerous-to-liberty/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Garbage in, Garbage out: Bad Foundations are Dangerous to Liberty</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/collected-political-writings#lf1644_label_097" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Otis The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (1764)</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-16-02-0074" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson to Rev Charles Clay (27 Jan 1790)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.nga.org/advocacy-communications/letters-nga/federal-government-shutdown/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">National Governor’s Association</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2092/pg2092.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Samuel Adams &#8211; Candidus &#8211; Boston Gazette (14 Oct 1771) </a></p> <p><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/beware-of-libertarians-bearing-gifts-why-a-bipartisan-move-against-the-nsa-could-kill-the-new-deal-e3d993393403/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Ian at ThinkProgress</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2703#Otis_1644_1094" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Otis, Jr. Writing as “Freeborn American” (27 Apr 1767)</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-01-02-0045-0007" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Adams &#8211; Boston Gazette (29 Aug 1763) </a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES (links will update after 12p Pacific)</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-040921:3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/the-10th-amendment-in-ten-top-10-60708503f6192551c44d76e0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-040921:3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1227295312664469504" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/1fdfae47-2956-46d4-8d4b-b091b43ea296" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/4Mit0aK5MN/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/ma68cfoJavkR/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/8c85b113-8316-4557-89af-a6776296674d" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/981229445" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+bQL8T3lGR" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1380558120888455186" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/7b8ad927-aa49-4961-a893-ba8027d9776c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CNc-tj8FrSd/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.pinterest.com/pin/102949541472495309/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Pinterest</a></p> <p><a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter/show/6070868c150206079aa7c05e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on MeWe</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/top-4%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cexcuses%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cfor%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8crejecting%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cnullification%e2%80%8c/">Top-4‌ ‌Excuses‌ ‌for‌ ‌Rejecting‌ ‌Nullification‌</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Path to Liberty Strategy The Opposition Democrats Libertarians Nullification Republicans The opposition Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 38:51 We hear them all the time - from the left and right - and even some libertarians too. On this episode, learn the most common excuses for rejecting or just avoiding nullification, all based on fear. Plus, some timeless responses from Thomas Jefferson, We hear them all the time - from the left and right - and even some libertarians too. On this episode, learn the most common excuses for rejecting or just avoiding nullification, all based on fear. Plus, some timeless responses from Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams and James Otis, Jr. The Tyranny of the Majority https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/09/the-tyranny-of-the-majority/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:569610b7-d430-1f28-d9ef-26d34b49e074 Fri, 09 Apr 2021 19:38:21 +0000 <p>No liberty-minded thinker I know of seriously argues today in favor of a hereditary monarchy, but many of us are fearful of an out-of-control hybrid democracy, which is what we have in America today.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/09/the-tyranny-of-the-majority/">The Tyranny of the Majority</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>&#8220;<i>Which is better — to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or three thousand tyrants one mile away?</i>&#8221;<br /> -Rev. Mather Blyes (1706-1788)</p> <p>Does it really matter if the instrument curtailing liberty is a monarch or a popularly elected legislature? This conundrum, along with the witty version of it put to a Boston crowd in 1775 by the little-known colonial-era preacher with the famous uncle — Cotton Mather, addresses the age-old question of whether liberty can survive in a democracy.</p> <p>Blyes was a loyalist, who, along with about one-third of the American adult white male population in 1776, opposed the American Revolution and favored continued governance by Great Britain. He didn&#8217;t fight for the king or agitate against George Washington&#8217;s troops, he merely warned of the dangers of too much democracy.</p> <p>No liberty-minded thinker I know of seriously argues today in favor of a hereditary monarchy, but many of us are fearful of an out-of-control hybrid democracy, which is what we have in America today. I say &#8220;hybrid&#8221; because, there remain in our federal structure a few safeguards against run-away democracy such as, the equal state representation in the Senate, the Electoral College, the state control of federal elections and life-tenured federal judges and justices.</p> <p>Of course, the Senate as originally crafted did not consist of popularly elected senators. Rather, they were appointed by state legislatures to represent the sovereign states as states, not the people in them. Part of James Madison&#8217;s genius was the construction of the federal government as a three-sided table. The first side stood for the people — the House of Representatives. The second side stood for the sovereign states — the Senate. And the third side stood for the nation-state — the presidency. The judiciary, whose prominent role today was unthinkable in 1789, was not part of this mix.</p> <p>In his famous Bank Speech, Madison argued eloquently against legislation chartering a national bank because the authority to create a bank was not only not present in the Constitution but also was retained by the states and reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment.</p> <p>In that speech, he warned <span class="column--highlighted-text">the creeping expansion of the federal government would trample the powers of the states and also the unenumerated rights of the people</span> that the Ninth Amendment — his pride and joy because it protected natural rights — prohibited the government from denying or disparaging.</p> <p>He gave that speech in February of 1791, eleven months before the addition of the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments — to the Constitution. Given the popular fears of a new central government, Madison assumed that the Bill of Rights would be quickly ratified. He was right.</p> <p>His Bank Speech remains just as relevant today.</p> <p>Had Madison been alive during the presidency of the anti-Madison Woodrow Wilson — who gave us World War I, the Federal Reserve, the administrative state and the federal income tax — he would have recoiled at a president destroying the three-sided table. Wilson did that by leading the campaign to amend the Constitution so as to provide for the direct popular election of senators. Nor would Madison have stomached the efforts today by liberal Democrats to amend the Constitution to provide for the direct popular election of the president.</p> <p>Part of Madison&#8217;s genius was to craft anti-democratic elements into the Constitution. And some of them — like retaining state sovereignty — created laboratories of liberty. Ronald Reagan reminded the American public in his first inaugural address that the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. Had I been the scrivener of that speech, I&#8217;d have begged him to add: &#8220;And the powers that the states gave to the feds, they can take back.&#8221;</p> <p>Reagan also famously said that we could vote with our feet. If you don&#8217;t like the over-the-top regulations in Massachusetts, you can move to New Hampshire. If you are fed up with the highest state taxes in the union in New Jersey, you can move to Pennsylvania.</p> <p>But the more state sovereignty the feds absorb — the more state governance that is federalized — the fewer differences there are among the regulatory and taxing structures of the states. This has happened because Congress — sensing a popular majority — has become a general legislature without regard for the constitutional limits imposed on it.</p> <p>If Congress wants to regulate an area of human behavior that is clearly beyond its constitutional competence, it bribes the states to do so with borrowed or Federal Reserve-created cash. Thus, it offered hundreds of millions of dollars to the states to lower their speed limits on highways and to lower the acceptable blood alcohol level in peoples&#8217; veins — this would truly have set Madison off — before a presumption of DWI may be argued, in return for cash to pave state-maintained highways.</p> <p>The states are partly to blame for this as well. They take whatever cash Congress offers and they accept the strings that come with it. And they, too, are tyrants. The states mandated the unconstitutional and crippling lockdowns of 2020, not the feds. The states should be paying the political and financial consequences for their misdeeds, not the feds. They took property and liberty without paying for it as the Constitution requires them to do, not the feds.</p> <p>Blyes feared a government of 3,000. Today, the feds employ close to 3 million. Thomas Jefferson warned that when the federal treasury becomes a federal trough, and the people recognize it as such, they would only send to Washington politicians — faithless to the Constitution — who promise to bring home the most cash.</p> <p>And the majority will take whatever it wants from the minority that cherishes limited government, private property and personal liberty.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/09/the-tyranny-of-the-majority/">The Tyranny of the Majority</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Founding Principles Bank Speech Democracy James Madison Rev. Mather Blyes Judge Andrew Napolitano Alaska Bill Would Ban State and Local Enforcement of Federal Red-Flag Laws https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/alaska-bill-would-ban-state-and-local-enforcement-of-federal-red-flag-laws/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:68d46e9c-2c1f-cc1a-a49d-da8c60b46a45 Fri, 09 Apr 2021 19:16:12 +0000 <p>A bill filed in the Alaska House would prohibit state enforcement of any federal “red-flag” laws, setting the foundation to nullify any such laws in practice and effect.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/alaska-bill-would-ban-state-and-local-enforcement-of-federal-red-flag-laws/">Alaska Bill Would Ban State and Local Enforcement of Federal Red-Flag Laws</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>JUNEAU</strong>, Alaska (April 9, 2021) &#8211; A bill filed in the Alaska House would prohibit state enforcement of any federal “red-flag” laws, setting the foundation to nullify any such laws in practice and effect.<span id="more-37005"></span></p> <p>Rep. David Eastman (R-Wasilla) filed House Bill 152 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AK/bill/HB152/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB152</a>) on March 26. The legislation declares that federal <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/red-flag-oppose-a-disease-at-its-beginning/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">red-flag laws</a> would “infringe the resident’s constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms and the right of freedom of speech” and therefore “is unenforceable and of no effect in the state.”</p> <p>The proposed law would prohibit any Alaska state agency or any political subdivision from accepting any federal grants to implement any federal statute, rule or executive order, federal or state judicial order, or judicial findings that would have the effect of forcing an extreme risk protection order against or upon a citizen of Alaska.</p> <p>It would also make it a felony offense for any individual, including a law enforcement officer, to enforce a federal red flag law. In effect, this would bar state and local police from enforcing federal red-flag laws. It would also subject federal agents to possible state prosecution, but this would be<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/06/16/state-bills-to-arrest-federal-agents-a-poison-pill/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> much more difficult to enforce in practice</a>.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, the Alaska legislature also “occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation in the state.”</p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”</p> <p>Enforcing a red flag law would be no different.</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with federal gun control</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 the implementation and enforcement of a federal red flag law, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Kansas can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control, including red flag laws. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB152 has been referred to the Committee on Community and Regional Affairs, where it will have to pass by a majority vote in order to receive a floor vote.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/alaska-bill-would-ban-state-and-local-enforcement-of-federal-red-flag-laws/">Alaska Bill Would Ban State and Local Enforcement of Federal Red-Flag Laws</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills 2nd Amendment Alaska ant-commandeering firearms HB152 red flag laws TJ Martinell Missouri House Committee Passes Bill to Opt State Out of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/missouri-house-committee-passes-bill-to-opt-state-out-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:0eef2d7f-4ef2-6a75-3cb4-96f356b1b7d1 Fri, 09 Apr 2021 19:04:21 +0000 <p>The proposed law would prohibit Missouri law enforcement agencies or prosecutors from entering into agreements to transfer seized property to a federal agency by way of adoption or other means for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under federal law.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/missouri-house-committee-passes-bill-to-opt-state-out-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/">Missouri House Committee Passes Bill to Opt State Out of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (April 9, 2021) – On Thursday, a second Missouri House committee passed a bill that would close a loophole allowing state and local police to circumvent stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government.<span id="more-37013"></span></p> <p>Rep. Tony Lovasco (R-O’Fallon) filed House Bill 750 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/HB750/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB750</a>) on Jan. 7. The proposed law would prohibit Missouri law enforcement agencies or prosecutors from entering into agreements to transfer seized property to a federal agency by way of adoption or other means for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under federal law.</p> <p>The proposed law would also require any Missouri law enforcement agency participating in a joint task force with federal agencies to transfer responsibility for the seized property to a state prosecutor for forfeiture under state law. Additionally, if a federal agency prohibits the transfer of the property to the state, the law enforcement agency would be fully “prohibited from accepting payment of any kind or distribution of forfeiture proceeds from the federal agency.&#8221;</p> <p>In effect, HB750 would withdraw Missouri from the federal program known as <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/federal-asset-forfeiture-program-helps-local-police-steal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">equitable sharing</a>. This is particularly important in light of a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/30/states-can-thwart-new-doj-asset-forfeiture-policy/">policy directive issued in July 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> for the Department of Justice (DOJ) that remains in effect today.</p> <p>On April 8, the House Rules-Administrative Oversight Committee passed HB750 by a 10-2 vote. It previously passed the House Special Committee on Criminal Justice by a 6-4 vote.</p> <p><strong>NECESSARY</strong></p> <p>While some people believe the Supreme Court “ended asset forfeiture,” the recent opinion in <i>Timbs v. Indiana</i> ended nothing. Without further action, civil asset forfeiture remains. Additionally, as law professor <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/20/supreme-court-rules-that-excessive-fines">Ilya Somin noted</a>, the Court left an important issue unresolved. What exactly counts as “excessive” in the civil forfeiture context?</p> <blockquote><p>“That is likely to be a hotly contested issue in the lower federal courts over the next few years. The ultimate effect of today’s decision depends in large part on how that question is resolved. If courts rule that only a few unusually extreme cases qualify as excessive, the impact of Timbs might be relatively marginal.”</p></blockquote> <p>Going forward, opponents of civil asset forfeiture could wait and see how lower federal courts will address this “over the next few years,” or they can do what a number of states have already taken steps to do, end the practice on a state level, and opt out of the federal equitable sharing program as well.</p> <p><strong>IN EFFECT</strong></p> <p>Missouri has some of the best state-level forfeiture restrictions in the country, <a href="http://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-missouri/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">according to the Institute for Justice</a>. The state requires a criminal conviction before prosecutors can proceed with forfeiture, and law enforcement agencies don’t get a cut of the proceeds. But federal asset forfeiture standards are much lower. As a result, state and local police often pass cases to the feds to avoid the more stringent state laws.</p> <p>The situation in California was similar until recently. The Golden State state also has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but until <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the state closed the loophole</a>, law enforcement agencies would often bypass the state restrictions by partnering with the federal government through the equitable sharing asset forfeiture program.</p> <p>Under these arrangements, state officials can simply hand over forfeiture prosecutions to the federal government and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds—even when state law banned or limited the practice. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. During the 2016 legislative session, the state closed the loophole.</p> <p>Like California, Missouri was also among the states with the highest level of federal forfeiture between 2000 and 2013, raking in $126 million in Department of Justice equitable sharing proceeds during that time.</p> <p>Passage of HB750 would close the loophole and significantly increase protections for Missouri property owners.</p> <p>As the Tenth Amendment Center <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/09/feds-meddling-in-attempt-to-undermine-state-asset-forfeiture-reform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">previously reported</a> the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.</p> <p>Why?</p> <p>We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB750 now moves to the full House for further consideration. House Speaker Rep. Elijah Haahr will need to move the bill to the House floor.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/missouri-house-committee-passes-bill-to-opt-state-out-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/">Missouri House Committee Passes Bill to Opt State Out of Federal Asset Forfeiture Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing HB750 Missouri Policing for Profit Mike Maharrey The 10th Amendment in Ten: Top-10 Founders Quotes https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/the-10th-amendment-in-ten-top-10-founders-quotes/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:bc0b4820-5918-0595-e975-001c27df9bdc Fri, 09 Apr 2021 17:19:48 +0000 <p>More important every day, the "foundation of the Constitution" is how Thomas Jefferson described the 10th Amendment. A quick overview of what it is and why it exists, plus the top-10 quotes from leading founders on the Tenth - and the essential principles behind it.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/the-10th-amendment-in-ten-top-10-founders-quotes/">The 10th Amendment in Ten: Top-10 Founders Quotes</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>More important every day, the &#8220;foundation of the Constitution&#8221; is how Thomas Jefferson described the 10th Amendment. A quick overview of what it is and why it exists, plus the top-10 quotes from leading founders on the Tenth &#8211; and the essential principles behind it. </p> <p>Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: April 9, 2021<span id="more-37016"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/FYvreJv-yNY" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The 10th Amendment Resource Page: Articles, Videos and More</a></p> <p><a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/state-house-speech/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Wilson State House Yard Speech (6 Oct 1787)</a></p> <p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Madison Federalist 45 (26 Jan 1788)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/elliot-the-debates-in-the-several-state-conventions-vol-3" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Edmund Randolph Virginia Ratifying Convention (10 June 1788)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.consource.org/document/roger-sherman-to-___-1787-12-8/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Roger Sherman to ___ (8 Dec 1787)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/elliot-the-debates-in-the-several-state-conventions-vol-2" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Williams New York Ratifying Convention (21 June 1788)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.consource.org/document/samuel-adams-to-richard-henry-lee-1789-8-24/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Samuel Adams to Richard Henry Lee (24 Aug 1789)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/elliot-the-debates-in-the-several-state-conventions-vol-2" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Hancock Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (6 Feb 1788)</a></p> <p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank (15 Feb 1791)</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-040721:7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/tyranny-unmasked-john-taylors-warning-about-606dfe5cad2feb15a005d8b1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-040721:7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1226603403835334656" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/b7ddc76a-a9fe-48bc-8831-25584a7957ec" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/4JKMely6_c/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/CyuXOYihyiAd/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/7e91636e-7998-4eab-b363-ace46c911408" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/978797435" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+CtgRFQ_MR" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1379833345438318596" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/a9187d3c-e062-4761-a35c-9bdeb678e3a4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/the-10th-amendment-in-ten-top-10-founders-quotes/">The 10th Amendment in Ten: Top-10 Founders Quotes</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. 10th Amendment Audio/Video Constitution Founding Fathers Founding Principles Path to Liberty Founders History Positive Grant Quotes sovereignty Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 13:41 More important every day, the "foundation of the Constitution" is how Thomas Jefferson described the 10th Amendment. A quick overview of what it is and why it exists, plus the top-10 quotes from leading founders on the Tenth - and the essential princip... More important every day, the "foundation of the Constitution" is how Thomas Jefferson described the 10th Amendment. A quick overview of what it is and why it exists, plus the top-10 quotes from leading founders on the Tenth - and the essential principles behind it. <br /> New Hampshire House Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Use of Facial Recognition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/new-hampshire-house-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-use-of-facial-recognition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:8546729d-7b8c-10fe-7123-12ae77fc4062 Fri, 09 Apr 2021 03:44:41 +0000 <p>The law would ban police and other government agencies from using facial recognition technology unless they have a search warrant supported by probable cause and signed by a neutral and detached magistrate.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/new-hampshire-house-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-use-of-facial-recognition/">New Hampshire House Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Use of Facial Recognition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>CONCORD</strong>, N.H. (April 8, 2021) – On Wednesday, the New Hampshire House passed a bill that would ban the government use of facial recognition technology without a warrant. The proposed law would not only help protect privacy in New Hampshire; it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.</p> <p>A bipartisan coalition of seven representatives introduced House Bill 499 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB499/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB499</a>) on Feb. 26. The law would ban police and other government agencies from using facial recognition technology unless they have a search warrant supported by probable cause and signed by a neutral and detached magistrate.</p> <p>The law would also ban access to the state’s driver’s license database for use with facial recognition technology and would prohibit any department other than the Division of Motor Vehicles from maintaining a searchable database of face images.</p> <p>Any data or information gathered in violation of the law, along with any evidence derived from such data or information, would be inadmissible in any trial, hearing, or other proceedings in or before any court or regulatory agency in the state of New Hampshire.</p> <p>HB499 passed the House by voice vote on April 7.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>A <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recent report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/31/local-state-and-federal-law-enforcement-partnering-to-create-massive-facial-recognition-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a massive, nationwide facial recognition system</a> for years.</p> <p>The FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.</p> <p>In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at <a href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">perpetuallineup.org</a>. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.</p> <blockquote><p>“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/study-lack-of-face-recognition-oversight-threatens-privacy-of-millions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clare Garvie said</a>. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”</p></blockquote> <p>There are <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">many technical and legal problems</a> with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8wa8/amazons-facial-recognition-misidentified-1-in-5-california-lawmakers-as-criminals" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature</a> as people in a database of arrest photos.</p> <p>With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.</p> <p>In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras</a> equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of state laws and local ordinances banning or limiting facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB499 moves to the <a href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee</a> for a hearing scheduled for June 14. If it passes out with a majority it will go on to the Senate floor.</p> <p class="dce-post-tags"> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/new-hampshire-house-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-use-of-facial-recognition/">New Hampshire House Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Use of Facial Recognition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Facial Recognition State Bills facial recognition Fourth Amendment HB499 New Hampshire Privacy surveillance Amanda Bowers Virginia Legalizes Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/virginia-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:58ceecbc-bb7e-2f38-94bc-8efcda4e8a3c Fri, 09 Apr 2021 01:42:51 +0000 <p>Under the law, adults 21 and older can purchase and possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to four plants without penalty. The legislation also creates a regulatory scheme for the commercial cultivation and retail sale of cannabis.  The law establishes an independent agency called the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority to establish a regulatory structure for the adult-use market. The bill includes provisions to create a process for the expungement of records relating to past marijuana crimes.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/virginia-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Virginia Legalizes Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>RICHMOND</strong>, Va. (April 8, 2021) – Yesterday, the Virginia House and Senate gave final approval to a bill that legalizes marijuana for adult use this year despite ongoing cannabis prohibition.<span id="more-36998"></span></p> <p>Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria) and Sen. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) introduced Senate Bill 1406 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/SB1406" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB1406</a>) on Jan. 13. Del. Charniele Herring (D-Alexandria) along with a large coalition of Democrats introduced the House companion, House Bill 2312 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/HB2312/2021/X1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2312</a>). Under the law, adults 21 and older can purchase and possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to four plants without penalty. The legislation also creates a regulatory scheme for the commercial cultivation and retail sale of cannabis.  The law establishes an independent agency called the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority to establish a regulatory structure for the adult-use market. The bill includes provisions to create a process for the expungement of records relating to past marijuana crimes.</p> <p>As originally passed by the legislature, legalization would not have gone into effect until Jan. 1, 2024, and would have also required the bill to pass a second vote by the assembly next year. Gov. Ralph Northam returned SB1406/HB2312 to the legislature with <a href="https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2021/march/headline-894125-en.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recommended amendments</a>. Most significantly, the governor’s changes enacted legalization as of July 1, 2021.</p> <p>On April 7, <a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/rollcall/HB2312/id/1047595" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the House approved the governor&#8217;s amendments 53-44</a>. The Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/rollcall/HB2312/id/1047596" target="_blank" rel="noopener">agreed to the changes by a 20-20 vote</a> with the Senate chair breaking the tie. Legalization will go into effect on July 1 without further action from the governor.</p> <p>In addition to implementing legalization this year, Northam&#8217;s amendments will speed up the expungement process, allowing for the expungement and sealing of criminal records on marijuana to begin as soon as state agencies are able to do so, and another amendment simplifies the criteria for when records can be sealed.</p> <p>Northam also proposed changes to the home cultivation provisions that will require plants to be labeled with identification information, kept out of sight from public view, and kept out of range of individuals under the age of 21.</p> <p>Virginia becomes the 17th state to legalize adult-use marijuana despite federal cannabis prohibition.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Virginia <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/virginia-becomes-34th-state-with-legal-medical-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">established a viable medical marijuana program</a> last year and also <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/07/now-in-effect-virginia-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decriminalized marijuana possession</a> despite ongoing federal prohibition.</p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>The legalization of marijuana for personal use in Virginia would take the next step and removes another layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state even though federal prohibition would remain in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Virginia is one of a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit i</a>n 2019. New Jersey, Montana and Arizona all <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/04/thirty-six-and-counting-more-states-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legalized recreational marijuana through ballot measures</a> in the 2020 election and Mississippi legalized medicinal cannabis. Earlier this year, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/to-the-governor-new-york-bill-legalizes-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-new-mexico-bill-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Mexico</a> legalized marijuana through legislative action.</p> <p>With 36 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, and 17 legalizing for adult recreational use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats.</p> <p>The push to legalize marijuana for personal use in Virginia demonstrates another important strategic reality. Once a state legalizes marijuana – even if only in a very limited way for medical purposes – it tends to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand grows. That creates pressure to further relax state law. These new laws represent a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/virginia-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/">Virginia Legalizes Marijuana Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis HB2312 Marijuana SB1406 Virginia Mike Maharrey Washington State Senate Passes Bill to Prohibit No-Knock Warrants and Limit Federal Militarization of Police https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/washington-state-senate-passes-bill-to-prohibit-no-knock-warrants-and-limit-federal-militarization-of-police/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:e3866f93-6ee7-a3b5-68eb-63b59305ebb3 Thu, 08 Apr 2021 20:12:51 +0000 <p>The legislation would make numerous policing reforms, including provisions to prohibit no-knock warrants and limit the type of military equipment police can obtain through federal programs.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/washington-state-senate-passes-bill-to-prohibit-no-knock-warrants-and-limit-federal-militarization-of-police/">Washington State Senate Passes Bill to Prohibit No-Knock Warrants and Limit Federal Militarization of Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>OLYMPIA</strong>, Wash. (April 8, 2021) – On Tuesday, the Washington state Senate passed a bill that would prohibit no-knock warrants and put limits on state and local law enforcement agencies&#8217; ability to acquire certain military equipment from federal programs.<span id="more-36997"></span></p> <p>Rep. Jesse Johnson (D-Federal Way) filed House Bill 1054 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/bill/HB1054/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1054</a>) in January. The legislation would make numerous policing reforms, including provisions to prohibit no-knock warrants and limit the type of military equipment police can obtain through federal programs.</p> <p>On April 6, the Senate passed HB1054 with amendments by <a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/rollcall/HB1054/id/1046303" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a 27-22 vote</a>. The House previously <a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/bill/HB1054/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed HB1054 by a 54-43 vote</a>. The House and Senate now must reconcile the two versions before the bill can go to the governor.</p> <p><strong>POLICE MILITARIZATION</strong></p> <p>HB1054 would  prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from acquiring or using “military equipment.” The bill defines the following as “military equipment.”</p> <ul> <li>firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater</li> <li>machine guns</li> <li>armed helicopters</li> <li>armed or armored drones</li> <li>armed vessels</li> <li>armed vehicles</li> <li>armed aircraft</li> <li>tanks</li> <li>long-range acoustic hailing devices</li> <li>rockets</li> <li>rocket launchers</li> <li>bayonets</li> <li>grenades</li> <li>missiles</li> <li>directed energy systems</li> <li>electromagnetic spectrum weapons</li> </ul> <p>A ban on mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) in the House version was amended out of the bill as passed by the Senate.</p> <p>The legislation applies both to the well-known 1033 program, along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government, as well as federal programs that fund the acquisition of surplus military equipment.</p> <p>Any law enforcement agency in possession of military equipment as of the effective date of the law would be required to return the equipment to the federal agency from which it was acquired, or destroy the equipment by December 31, 2022.</p> <p>While the enactment of HB1054 would not end the militarization of local cops, it would keep some dangerous weapons out of the hands of police officers.</p> <p><strong>Federal Surplus and Grant Money</strong></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/war-on-liberty-an-overview-of-federal-programs-that-militarize-and-nationalize-local-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Police can get military-grade weapons through a number of federal programs</a>, including the 1033 program, and via the Department of Homeland Security through the (DHS) “Homeland Security Grant Program.” The DHS <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/04/12/dhs-announces-funding-opportunity-fiscal-year-2019-preparedness-grants#:~:text=Homeland%20Security%20Grant%20Program%20(HSGP,of%20terrorism%20and%20other%20threats." data-et-has-event-already="true">doles out over $1 billion in counterterrorism funds</a> to state and local police each year. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon-funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”</p> <p>In August 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/28/executive-order-takes-window-dressing-off-police-militarization-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gave a push to local police militarization</a>. Trump’s action rescinded an <a href="https://www.bja.gov/publications/LEEWG_Report_Final.pdf">Obama-era policy </a>meant to provide greater transparency and oversight around the Department of Defense 1033 program and other federal resources that provide military weapons to local police. Biden will reportedly reinstitute the Obama policy, but it was nothing more than window-dressing. In practice, the Obama EO did little to stem the flow of military equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies.</p> <p>Even with the Obama-era limits back in place, the 1033 program will remain essentially intact. Military gear will continue to pour into local police agencies, just as it did when Obama was in the White House.</p> <p>Even if you see the Obama/Biden limits as a positive, the multiple federal flip-flops underscore the importance of putting limits on police militarization at the state and local level. Federal policy tends to change depending on the party in power. Whatever limits Biden imposes through executive order can be undone with a stroke of the next president’s pen. The only way to effectively end police militarization for good is permanently withdrawing the state from these federal programs.</p> <p>Passage of HB1054 would limit Washington’s participation in federal police militarization programs.</p> <p><b>Command and Control</b></p> <p>Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the founders. They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’</p> <p>In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”</p> <p>By making it more difficult for local police to get this military-grade gear, they become less likely to cooperate with the feds, and it also removes incentives for partnerships. Passage of HB1054 would take a first step toward limiting police militarization in Washington State.</p> <p><strong>NO-KNOCK WARRANTS</strong></p> <p>Another provision in HB1054 would effectively ban “no-knock” warrants. Under the proposed law, police would be prohibited from seeking and courts could not issue a search or arrest warrant granting an express exception to the requirement for the officer to provide notice of his or her office and purpose when executing the warrant. Police could only enter a building &#8220;if, after notice of his or her office and purpose, he or she be refused admittance.&#8221;</p> <p>Passage of HB1054 would effectively nullify and make irrelevant several Supreme Court opinions that give police across the U.S. legal cover for conducting no-knock raids.</p> <p>In the 1995 case <em><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15506865603077276139&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wilson v. Arkansas</a></em>, the Supreme Court established that police must peacefully knock, announce their presence, and allow time for the occupants to open the door before entering a home to serve a warrant. But the Court allowed for “exigent circumstance” exceptions if police fear violence, if the suspect is a flight risk, or if officers fear the suspect will destroy evidence.</p> <p>As journalist <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/03/no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-was-illegal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Radley Balko notes</a>, police utilized this exception to the fullest extent, “simply declaring in search warrant affidavits that <i>all</i> drug dealers are a threat to dispose of evidence, flee or assault the officers at the door.”</p> <p>The SCOTUS eliminated this blanket exception in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10920539616941250099&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i>Richards v. Wisconsin</i></a>  (1997) requiring police to show why a specific individual is a threat to dispose of evidence, commit an act of violence or flee from police. But even with the opinion, the bar for obtaining a no-knock warrant remains low.</p> <blockquote><p>“In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a <strong>reasonable suspicion</strong> that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” [Emphasis added]</p></blockquote> <p>Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low legal bar to meet. Through this exception, police can justify no-knock entry on any warrant application. In effect, the parameters in the SCOTUS ruling make no-knock the norm instead of the exception.</p> <p>A third Supreme Court ruling effectively eliminated the consequences for violating the “knock and announce” requirement even without a no-knock warrant. In <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1360.pdf">Hudson v. Michigan</a></em> (2006), the High Court held that evidence seized in violation of knock and announce was not subject to the exclusionary rule. In other words, police could still use the evidence in court even though they technically gathered it illegally.</p> <p>Significantly, were it not for the dubious “<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>” made up by the Supreme Crout based on the 14th Amendment that purportedly empowers the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, these cases would have never gone to federal court and we wouldn’t have these blanket rules.</p> <p>Without specific restrictions from the state, police officers generally operate within the parameters set by the High Court. By passing restrictions on no-knock warrants, states set standards that go beyond the Supreme Court limits and in effect, nullify the SCOTUS opinion,</p> <p><strong>OTHER REFORMS</strong></p> <p>HB1054 would  ban law enforcement officers from using &#8220;choke holds.&#8221; It would also prohibit the use of tear gas &#8220;unless necessary to alleviate a present risk of serious harm posed by (a) Riot inside a correctional, jail, or detention facility; (b) barricaded subject; or (c) hostage situation.&#8221; Other provisions in the legislation would institute rules for police vehicular chases.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB1054 will go back to the House for concurrence with the Senate amendments. If the House does not agree to the changes, the bill will most likely go to a conference committee to hammer out a compromise.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/washington-state-senate-passes-bill-to-prohibit-no-knock-warrants-and-limit-federal-militarization-of-police/">Washington State Senate Passes Bill to Prohibit No-Knock Warrants and Limit Federal Militarization of Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Police State Bills 1033 Program HB1054 no-knock warrant Police Militarization Police-State Washington Mike Maharrey Missouri Senate Committee Passes Bill to Ban Enforcement Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/missouri-senate-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-enforcement-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ce02d1af-c596-84b7-3d7a-737414551637 Thu, 08 Apr 2021 19:45:35 +0000 <p>Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any entity or person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/missouri-senate-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-enforcement-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/">Missouri Senate Committee Passes Bill to Ban Enforcement Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (April 8, 2021) – Today, a Missouri Senate committee passed a bill that would take on federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.<span id="more-36996"></span></p> <p>Rep. Jered Taylor filed House Bill 85 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/HB85/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB85</a>) on Dec 1. Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any entity or person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.</p> <p>On April 8, the Senate General Laws Committee passed HB85 by a 5-2 vote with several amendments to clarify language and intent. Sen. Bill Eigel, Sen. Eric Burlison, Sen. Rick Brattin, Sen. Holly Rehder and Sen. Elain Gannon, voted yes. Sen. Lauren Arthor, and Sen. Greg Razer voted no.</p> <p><strong>DETAILS OF THE LEGISLATION</strong></p> <p>The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:</p> <ul> <li>taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;</li> <li>any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.</li> </ul> <p>The proposed law defines a “law-abiding citizen” as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.”</p> <p>Under the proposed law, infringement on the right to keep and bear arms would include the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Pres. Trump’s <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/10/states-should-nullify-trumps-unconstitutional-bump-stock-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bump-stock ban</a>, proposed federal “red-flag laws,” and any future gun control schemes implemented by the federal government.</p> <p>The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies and political subdivisions in Missouri to a civil penalty of not less than $50,000 for enforcing or attempting to enforce any of the infringements outlined by the law or for giving material aid and support to such enforcement efforts.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Missouri can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB85 will now move to the full Senate. <a href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/mem26/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senate President Pro Tem Dave Schatz</a> controls the process at this point. He must call the bill out of committee and place it on the Senate calendar. Missouri residents are urged to contact him directly &#8211; be firm, but polite &#8211; and urge him to move HB85 to the Senate Calendar. <a href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/mem26/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Contact info at this link</a>.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/missouri-senate-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-enforcement-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/">Missouri Senate Committee Passes Bill to Ban Enforcement Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills 2nd Amendment Preservation Act Federal Gun Control HB85 Missouri Mike Maharrey South Carolina House Passes Bill to Take on Future Federal Gun Control, Enact “Constitutional Carry” https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/south-carolina-house-passes-bill-to-take-on-future-federal-gun-control-enact-constitutional-carry/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:70ab0d26-a06e-6e2c-6398-b3ca7a7b8de6 Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:29:53 +0000 <p>the South Carolina House passed a bill that would set the foundation to end enforcement of future federal gun control and make it legal for South Carolinians to carry a firearm without a permit. Passage into law would represent a major step toward neutering future federal gun laws in South Carolina.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/south-carolina-house-passes-bill-to-take-on-future-federal-gun-control-enact-constitutional-carry/">South Carolina House Passes Bill to Take on Future Federal Gun Control, Enact “Constitutional Carry”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>COLUMBIA</strong>, S.C. (April 8, 2021) – Today, the South Carolina House passed a bill that would set the foundation to end enforcement of future federal gun control and make it legal for South Carolinians to carry a firearm without a permit. Passage into law would represent a major step toward neutering future federal gun laws in South Carolina.<span id="more-36993"></span></p> <p>Rep. B. Cox (R-Greenville County) introduced House Bill 3096 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/SC/bill/H3096/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">H3096</a> ) on Jan 12. As introduced, the legislation would authorize anyone legally allowed to own a gun to carry it without a state-issued license.</p> <p>On the House floor, an amendment was approved adding language to prohibit state or local enforcement of any future federal gun control by banning the allocation of any state or local funds &#8220;for the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any executive order, or directive issued by the President of the United States or an act of the United States Congress that contradicts the provisions of this act relating to Constitutional Carry, or that otherwise regulates the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories if passed after January 1, 2021.&#8221;</p> <p>It would also ban state and local governments from allocating personnel or property for &#8220;the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of any executive order, or directive issued by the President of the United States that contradicts the provisions of this act relating to Constitutional Carry, or that regulates the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories if passed after January 1, 2021.&#8221;</p> <p>On Wednesday, the House <a href="https://legiscan.com/SC/rollcall/H3096/id/1046878" target="_blank" rel="noopener">voted 69-47 to approve</a> the bill on 2nd Reading. And today, the bill was read for a 3rd time, passed, and sent to the Senate.</p> <p>The language addressing federal gun control mirrors the <a href="https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=3042&amp;session=124&amp;summary=B" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Second Amendment Preservation Act</a> sponsored by Rep Stewart Jones (R- Laurens). Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center say that bill was going to be buried in the House Judiciary Committee. By amending the language to H3096 after it had already passed committee, Jones gave his bill new life.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of South Carolina can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY</strong></p> <p>The bill authorizes adults to carry a handgun without first having to get government permission.  Additionally, the legislation maintains the existing Concealed Weapon Permit (CWP) system, so people who still wish to obtain a permit may do so.</p> <p>While such permitless or &#8220;constitutional&#8221; carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway.</p> <p>The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”</p> <p>Less restrictive state gun laws will likely have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce any future federal gun control, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts.</p> <p>State actions such as passing H3096 would lower barriers for those wanting to the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>H3096 now moves to the Senate, and has been assigned to the powerful Judiciary Committee. There, it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/south-carolina-house-passes-bill-to-take-on-future-federal-gun-control-enact-constitutional-carry/">South Carolina House Passes Bill to Take on Future Federal Gun Control, Enact “Constitutional Carry”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills firearms H3096 second amendment South Carolina Mike Maharrey New Virginia Law is a De Facto Ban on Facial Recognition Surveillance https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/new-virginia-law-is-a-de-facto-ban-on-facial-recognition-surveillance/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:9305798c-2913-b2dd-5d73-5dee011db117 Thu, 08 Apr 2021 16:09:27 +0000 <p>The new law prohibits the purchase or deployment of facial recognition technology unless it is expressly authorized by statute. In effect, this would ban law enforcement's use of facial recognition until the state legislature passes another law in the future governing its use.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/new-virginia-law-is-a-de-facto-ban-on-facial-recognition-surveillance/">New Virginia Law is a De Facto Ban on Facial Recognition Surveillance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>RICHMOND</strong>, Va. (April 8, 2021) – Yesterday, the Virginia House and Senate gave final approval to a bill that sets the stage to limit the acquisition and use of facial recognition surveillance technology. The proposed law will not only help protect privacy in Virginia; it could also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-36992"></span></p> <p>Delegate Lashrecse D. Aird (D-Petersburg) introduced House Bill 2031 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/bill/HB2031/2021/X1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2031</a>) on Jan. 12. The new law places a moratorium on law enforcement’s use of facial recognition. The new law prohibits the purchase or deployment of facial recognition technology unless it is expressly authorized by statute. In effect, this would ban law enforcement&#8217;s use of facial recognition until the state legislature passes another law in the future governing its use.</p> <p>The law includes specific criteria that must be included in any statute relating to the use of facial recognition technology.</p> <blockquote><p>“Such statute shall require that any facial recognition technology purchased or deployed by the local law-enforcement agency be maintained under the exclusive control of such local law-enforcement agency and that any data contained by such facial recognition technology be kept confidential, not be disseminated or resold, and be accessible only by a search warrant issued pursuant to Chapter 5 (§ 19.2-52 et seq.) of Title 19.2 or an administrative or inspection warrant issued pursuant to law.”</p></blockquote> <p>The Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/rollcall/HB2031/id/1005404" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed the final version of HB2031 by a 39-0 vote</a>. The House concurred <a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/rollcall/HB2031/id/1008869" target="_blank" rel="noopener">by a vote of 99-0</a>. Gov. Ralph Northam sent the bill back to the legislature recommending a technical amendment. On April 7, both the House and Senate concurred with the governor&#8217;s recommendation, passing the bill into law. It will go into effect on July 1.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>A <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recent report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/31/local-state-and-federal-law-enforcement-partnering-to-create-massive-facial-recognition-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a massive, nationwide facial recognition system</a> for years.</p> <p>The FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.</p> <p>In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at <a href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">perpetuallineup.org</a>. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.</p> <blockquote><p>“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/study-lack-of-face-recognition-oversight-threatens-privacy-of-millions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clare Garvie said</a>. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”</p></blockquote> <p>There are <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">many technical and legal problems</a> with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8wa8/amazons-facial-recognition-misidentified-1-in-5-california-lawmakers-as-criminals" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature</a> as people in a database of arrest photos.</p> <p>With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.</p> <p>In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras</a> equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of state laws and local ordinances banning or limiting facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/new-virginia-law-is-a-de-facto-ban-on-facial-recognition-surveillance/">New Virginia Law is a De Facto Ban on Facial Recognition Surveillance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Facial Recognition State Bills facial recognition Fourth Amendment HB2031 Privacy surveillance Virginia Mike Maharrey Texas House Committee Holds Hearing on Bill That Would Create State Process to End Police Qualified Immunity https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/texas-house-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-that-would-create-state-process-to-end-police-qualified-immunity/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:a4e7835f-f35d-b623-2983-f917d16b7922 Wed, 07 Apr 2021 23:29:58 +0000 <p>The legislation would create a cause of action in state courts to sue police officers who under the color of law “deprived the person of or caused the person to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Texas Constitution.” The proposed law specifically states “qualified immunity or a defendant’s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of the defendant’s conduct is not a defense to an action brought under this chapter.”</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/texas-house-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-that-would-create-state-process-to-end-police-qualified-immunity/">Texas House Committee Holds Hearing on Bill That Would Create State Process to End Police Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>AUSTIN</strong>, Texas (April 7, 2021) – A Texas House committee recently held a hearing on a bill that would create a process to sue police officers in state court for using excessive force or taking other actions that violate individual rights without the possibility of “qualified immunity” as a defense.<span id="more-36977"></span></p> <p>Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) filed House Bill 88 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB88/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB88</a>) on Nov. 9. The legislation would create a cause of action in state courts to sue police officers who under the color of law “deprived the person of or caused the person to be deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the <a href="https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?link=CN" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Texas Constitution</a>.” The proposed law specifically states “qualified immunity or a defendant’s good faith but erroneous belief in the lawfulness of the defendant’s conduct is not a defense to an action brought under this chapter.”</p> <p>Under the proposed law, the court would award “reasonable attorney fees” to the plaintiff if they prevail. It would also allow a defendant to collect costs and attorney fees if the court finds the plaintiff’s claims were “frivolous.”</p> <p>The House Homeland Security &amp; Public Safety Committee held a hearing on March 25th, an important first step in the legislative process.</p> <p>Typically, people sue police for using excessive force or other types of misconduct through the federal court system under the U.S. Bill of Rights. But <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/13/how-federal-courts-gave-us-qualified-immunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">federal courts created a qualified immunity defense out of thin air</a>, making it nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers responsible for actions taken in the line of duty. In order to move ahead with a suit, the plaintiff must establish that it was “clearly established” that the officer’s action was unconstitutional. The “clearly established” test erects an almost insurmountable hurdle to those trying to prove excessive force or a violation of their rights.</p> <p>HB88 would create an alternative path in state court with no qualified immunity hurdle to clear.</p> <p>The legislation is similar to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/signed-as-law-colorado-creates-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity-for-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a law recently passed in Colorado</a>.</p> <p><strong>In Practice</strong></p> <p>It remains unclear how the state legal process will play out in practice.</p> <p>The first question is whether people will actually utilize the state courts instead of the federal process. Under the original constitutional system, it would have never been a federal issue to begin with. Regulation of police powers was clearly delegated to the states, not the federal government. But with the advent of the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>, people reflexively run to federal courts. But by removing the qualified immunity hurdle, it should incentivize people to take advantage of the state system.</p> <p>The second question is if police officers will be able to have cases removed to federal jurisdiction in order to take advantage of qualified immunity.</p> <p>State and local law enforcement officers working <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/16/joint-law-enforcement-task-forces-are-creating-a-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">on joint state/federal task forces</a> will almost certainly will. They are effectively treated as federal agents.</p> <p>For Texas law enforcement officers not operating with a federal task force, it seems unlikely they will be able to remove the case to federal court initially, but that door could open on appeal.</p> <p>One attorney the Tenth Amendment Center talked to said that it might be possible for officers to have their case removed to federal court to consider U.S. constitutional ramifications. But he said even then, he thinks federal courts would have to respect the state law prohibiting qualified immunity as a defense. The federal court would likely have to apply the state law as the state intended, even though the federal court might well be able to decide whether or not a U.S. constitutional violation had taken place.</p> <p>Regardless, a process operating totally under the state constitution will be much less likely to end up in federal court than a process that depends on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The state process will make it more difficult for police to simply side-step civil suits by declaring sovereign immunity up front.</p> <p><strong>Moving Forward </strong></p> <p>The Supreme Court shows no interest in rolling back its qualified immunity doctrine. In fact, the High Court recently rejected several cases that would have allowed it to revisit the issue. For instance, the SCOTUS let stand an <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715566.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eleventh Circuit decision</a> granting immunity to a police officer who shot a ten-year-old child in the back of the knee, while repeatedly attempting to shoot a pet dog that wasn’t threatening anyone.</p> <p>Congress could prohibit qualified immunity. <a href="https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-end-qualified-immunity" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A bill</a> sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.) and  Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) would do just that. But it’s a long-shot to pass. Congress does not have a good track recorded on reining in government power.</p> <p>The best path forward is to bypass the federal system as Colorado has already done and Texas will consider</p> <p>Other states should follow their lead and create state processes to hold their police officers accountable. With the evolution of qualified immunity, the federal process is an abject failure. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote in the 1986 case <em>Malley v. Briggs</em>, qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-immunity-scotus-snapshot/six-takeaways-from-reuters-investigation-of-police-violence-and-qualified-immunity-idUSKBN22K1AM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Reuters</em> called it</a> “a highly effective shield in thousands of lawsuits seeking to hold cops accountable for using excessive force.”</p> <p>Attorney and activist Dave Roland called on Missouri to adopt a similar process in <a href="https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/dave-roland-no-more-excuses-hold-law-enforcement-officials-accountable/article_9d627981-1950-5858-abd9-d14cf587def6.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an op-ed published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>A consensus has developed — crossing all party and ideological lines — for the proposition that qualified immunity is an evil that should be undone. At the federal level either the Supreme Court or Congress could undo it, but thus far neither has seen fit to act. Justice in Missouri, however, does not need to wait on Washington — the Legislature can and should adopt a Missouri statute that allows citizens to sue government officials who have violated citizens’ constitutional rights.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB88 Still needs to come up for a vote in the <a href="https://www.house.texas.gov/committees/committee/?committee=C420" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House Homeland Security &amp; Public Safety Committee</a>. Without a majority vote, it cannot move forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/texas-house-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-that-would-create-state-process-to-end-police-qualified-immunity/">Texas House Committee Holds Hearing on Bill That Would Create State Process to End Police Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Police Qualified Immunity State Bills HB88 Texas Amanda Bowers Signed by the Governor: New Mexico Law Creates State Process to End Qualified Immunity https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-by-the-governor-new-mexico-law-creates-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:5fc56a0e-64fc-7592-45c4-ecf12d02924c Wed, 07 Apr 2021 21:31:12 +0000 <p>The legislation would create a cause of action in state courts to sue state or local government agencies when their employees or officials “subject or cause to be subjected any resident of New Mexico or person within the state to deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured pursuant to the bill of rights of the constitution of New Mexico.”</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-by-the-governor-new-mexico-law-creates-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity/">Signed by the Governor: New Mexico Law Creates State Process to End Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>SANTA FE</strong>, N.M. (April 7, 2021) – On Wednesday, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a bill that will create a process to sue in state court when government agents use excessive force or take other actions that violate individual rights without the possibility of “qualified immunity” as a defense.<span id="more-36991"></span></p> <p>Rep. Georgene Louis (D) and House Speaker Brian Egolf (D) introduced House Bill 4 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NM/bill/HB4/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB4</a>) on Jan. 19. The legislation would create a cause of action in state courts to sue state or local government agencies when their employees or officials “subject or cause to be subjected any resident of New Mexico or person within the state to deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured pursuant to the bill of rights of the constitution of New Mexico.”</p> <p>HB4 specifically excludes qualified immunity as a defense in such cases.</p> <blockquote><p>“Claims brought pursuant to the New Mexico Civil Rights Act shall be brought exclusively against a public body Any public body named in an action filed pursuant to the New Mexico Civil Rights Act shall be held liable for conduct of individuals acting on behalf of, under color of or within the course and scope of the authority of the public body.”</p></blockquote> <p>In practice, an individual could pursue damages or injunctive relief under the law without the qualified immunity barrier, but they could not directly hold individual agents accountable. That would be left to the employing agency.</p> <p>On March 17, <a href="https://legiscan.com/NM/rollcall/HB4/id/1029805" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Senate passed HB4 by a 26-15 vote</a> with some technical amendments, and the House concurred with the Senate changes.  The House <a href="https://legiscan.com/NM/rollcall/HB4/id/1007178" target="_blank" rel="noopener">previously approved the measure by a 39-29 vote</a>.</p> <p><strong>The Process </strong></p> <p>Typically, people sue police for using excessive force or other types of misconduct through the federal court system under the U.S. Bill of Rights. But <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/13/how-federal-courts-gave-us-qualified-immunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">federal courts created a qualified immunity defense out of thin air</a>, making it nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers responsible for actions taken in the line of duty. In order to move ahead with a suit, the plaintiff must establish that it was “clearly established” that the officer’s action was unconstitutional. The “clearly established” test erects an almost insurmountable hurdle to those trying to prove excessive force or a violation of their rights.</p> <p>Passage of HB4 will create an alternative path in state court with no qualified immunity hurdle to clear.</p> <p><span class="s1">New Mexico is the first state to end qualified immunity for all public bodies, the New Mexico House Democrats <a href="https://twitter.com/NMHouseDems/status/1379865610495004673"><span class="s2">said on Twitter</span></a>. However, it is not the only state to end the practice in some capacity, such as</span> a law recently <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/signed-as-law-colorado-creates-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity-for-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed in Colorado</a>.</p> <p><strong>In Practice</strong></p> <p>It remains unclear how the state legal process will play out in practice.</p> <p>The first question is whether people will actually utilize the state courts instead of the federal process. Under the original constitutional system, it would have never been a federal issue to begin with. Regulation of police powers was clearly delegated to the states, not the federal government. But with the advent of the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>, people reflexively run to federal courts. But by removing the qualified immunity hurdle, it should incentivize people to take advantage of the state system.</p> <p>The second question is if police officers will be able to have cases removed to federal jurisdiction in order to take advantage of qualified immunity.</p> <p>State and local law enforcement officers working <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/16/joint-law-enforcement-task-forces-are-creating-a-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">on joint state/federal task forces</a> almost certainly would. They are effectively treated as federal agents.</p> <p>For New Mexico law enforcement officers not operating with a federal task force, it seems unlikely they will be able to remove the case to federal court initially, but that door could open on appeal.</p> <p>One attorney the Tenth Amendment Center talked to said that it might be possible for officers to have their case removed to federal court to consider U.S. constitutional ramifications. But he said even then, he thinks federal courts would have to respect the state law prohibiting qualified immunity as a defense. The federal court would likely have to apply the state law as the state intended, even though the federal court might well be able to decide whether or not a U.S. constitutional violation had taken place.</p> <p>Regardless, a process operating totally under the state constitution will be much less likely to end up in federal court than a process that depends on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The state process will make it more difficult for police to simply side-step civil suits by declaring sovereign immunity up front.</p> <p><strong>Moving Forward </strong></p> <p>The Supreme Court shows no interest in rolling back its qualified immunity doctrine. In fact, the High Court recently rejected several cases that would have allowed it to revisit the issue. For instance, the SCOTUS let stand an <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715566.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eleventh Circuit decision</a> granting immunity to a police officer who shot a ten-year-old child in the back of the knee, while repeatedly attempting to shoot a pet dog that wasn’t threatening anyone.</p> <p>Congress could prohibit qualified immunity. <a href="https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-end-qualified-immunity" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A bill</a> sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.) and  Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) during the last Congress would have done just that, but it was never taken up. Congress does not have a good track record on reining in government power.</p> <p>The best path forward is to bypass the federal system as New Mexico and Colorado have done.</p> <p>Other states should follow their lead and create state processes to hold their police officers accountable. With the evolution of qualified immunity, the federal process is an abject failure. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote in the 1986 case <em>Malley v. Briggs</em>, qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-immunity-scotus-snapshot/six-takeaways-from-reuters-investigation-of-police-violence-and-qualified-immunity-idUSKBN22K1AM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Reuters</em> called it</a> “a highly effective shield in thousands of lawsuits seeking to hold cops accountable for using excessive force.”</p> <p>Attorney and activist Dave Roland called on Missouri to adopt a similar process in <a href="https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/dave-roland-no-more-excuses-hold-law-enforcement-officials-accountable/article_9d627981-1950-5858-abd9-d14cf587def6.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an op-ed published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>A consensus has developed — crossing all party and ideological lines — for the proposition that qualified immunity is an evil that should be undone. At the federal level either the Supreme Court or Congress could undo it, but thus far neither has seen fit to act. Justice in Missouri, however, does not need to wait on Washington — the Legislature can and should adopt a Missouri statute that allows citizens to sue government officials who have violated citizens’ constitutional rights.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>The new law goes into effect on July 1.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-by-the-governor-new-mexico-law-creates-state-process-to-end-qualified-immunity/">Signed by the Governor: New Mexico Law Creates State Process to End Qualified Immunity</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Police Qualified Immunity State Bills HB4 Incorporation Doctrine New Mexico Police-State Mike Maharrey Maine Bill Would Defund State’s Only Fusion Center https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/maine-bill-would-defund-states-only-fusion-center/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d2d3cff0-93da-4e9a-25ad-4d441e290b1c Wed, 07 Apr 2021 21:16:17 +0000 <p>The legislation would totally defund the Maine Information and Analysis Center (MIAC).  The bill would also eliminate state staffing for the center by cutting its four state police and two support employees from the state payroll.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/maine-bill-would-defund-states-only-fusion-center/">Maine Bill Would Defund State’s Only Fusion Center</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>AUGUSTA</strong>, Maine (April 7, 2021) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Maine House would defund the state&#8217;s only federal fusion center and significantly hinder the growing federal surveillance state.<span id="more-36975"></span></p> <p>Rep. Charlotte Warren (D), along with a fellow Democrat, two Republicans and two independents, introduced House Bill 1278 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/ME/bill/LD1278/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LD1278</a>) on March 25. The legislation would totally defund the Maine Information and Analysis Center (MIAC).  The bill would also eliminate state staffing for the center by cutting its four state police and two support employees from the state payroll.</p> <p>In effect, LD1278 would shut down the state&#8217;s only fusion center.</p> <p>MIAC is one of 78 <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">fusion centers spread across the United States</a>. While the states own and operate their fusion centers, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security facilitates and coordinates their activities. According to the DHS website, “The National Network of Fusion Centers is the hub of much of the two-way intelligence and information flow between the federal government and our State, Local, Tribal and Territorial (SLTT) and private sector partners. The fusion centers represent a shared commitment between the federal government and the state and local governments who own and operate them.”</p> <p>The <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/eff-calls-maine-support-bill-defunds-local-intelligence-fusion-center" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) calls fusion centers</a> &#8220;another unnecessary cog in the surveillance state.&#8221;</p> <p>The MIAC is the subject of <a href="https://www.pressherald.com/2020/05/14/maine-trooper-says-he-was-retaliated-against-for-reporting-illegal-police-surveillance-of-citizens/?rel=related&amp;rel=related#" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a federal whistleblower lawsuit</a>. Maine State Police Trooper George Loder alledges that the fusion center kept an illegal database of gun owners, illegally surveilled peace activists, and regularly circumvented federal privacy laws.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. By coordinating surveillance efforts across states, regions and the entire U.S. creates 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>There have been numerous reports of abuses by fusion centers across the U.S.</p> <p>A document pulled from the BlueLeaks trove reveals the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/27/document-unmasks-fusion-centers-participation-in-license-plate-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC) collects automatic license plate reader (ALPR) information</a> and stores it for up to a year, making it accessible to government agencies across the country. There have also been reports of <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/12/police-and-fusion-centers-tapping-into-home-security-systems-and-cop-body-cams/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fusion centers tapping into private security systems and police body cams</a>. In a nutshell, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/details-of-fusion-center-surveillance-revealed-good-morning-liberty-02-08-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the federal Department of Homeland Security uses fusion centers</a> to silently and gradually converting local police agencies into regional subdivisions of the surveillance state.</p> <p>Closing the state&#8217;s only fusion center would take one cog out of the federal surveillance apparatus and would strike a serious blow to the federal surveillance state.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>LD1278 was referred to the <a href="http://legislature.maine.gov/committee/#Committees/CJPS" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. It is scheduled for a public hearing, Monday, April 12, at 10 a.m., State House Room 436.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/maine-bill-would-defund-states-only-fusion-center/">Maine Bill Would Defund State’s Only Fusion Center</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. State Bills Surveillance Fourth Amendment Fusion Center LD1278 Maine Police-State Privacy surveillance Mike Maharrey James Madison vs. Joe Biden https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/james-madison-vs-joe-biden/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:8495b907-55a6-d9d0-d95e-0a7a3a3b45e8 Wed, 07 Apr 2021 19:50:39 +0000 <p>Joe Biden is rolling out a massive federal infrastructure bill featuring another $2 or $3 trillion in federal spending and tax increases to boot. Did you know James Madison vetoed an infrastructure bill? He said there was no constitutional authorization for such spending. So what in the world has changed?</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/james-madison-vs-joe-biden/">James Madison vs. Joe Biden</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Joe Biden is rolling out a massive federal infrastructure bill featuring another $2 or $3 trillion in federal spending and tax increases to boot. Did you know James Madison vetoed an infrastructure bill? He said there was no constitutional authorization for such spending. So what in the world has changed?</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">When it comes to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/infrastructure?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#infrastructure</a> spending and the Constitution &#8211; we&#39;ll side with James Madison over <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JoeBiden</a> every single time.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/founders?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#founders</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://t.co/GJeXnMkimu">pic.twitter.com/GJeXnMkimu</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1379226798873972739?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 6, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/today-in-history-james-madison-vetoes-infrastructure-spending-bill/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Today in History: James Madison Vetoes Infrastructure Spending Bill</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/04/08/is-federal-infrastructure-spending-unconstitutional/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Is Federal Infrastructure Spending Unconstitutional?</a><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/06/05/general-welfare-and-common-defense-explained-by-james-madison/">“General Welfare” and “Common Defense” Explained by James Madison</a><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/03/29/the-general-welfare-clause-is-not-a-blank-check/">The General Welfare Clause Is Not a Blank Check</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/james-madison-vs-joe-biden/">James Madison vs. Joe Biden</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video General Welfare Clause James Madison Maharrey Minute Constitution Infrastructure Joe Biden Mike Maharrey Signed by the Governor: Arizona Law Bans State Enforcement of Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-by-the-governor-arizona-law-bans-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f647e1a3-3bba-a89b-9b44-ae8eec99a43c Wed, 07 Apr 2021 19:16:21 +0000 <p>The new law bans the state and all political subdivisions of the state from “using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the United States government that is inconsistent with any law” of the state of Arizona regarding the regulation of firearms.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-by-the-governor-arizona-law-bans-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control/">Signed by the Governor: Arizona Law Bans State Enforcement of Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>PHOENIX</strong>, Ariz. (April 7, 2021) – Yesterday, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill that bans state and local enforcement of federal gun control; past, present and future. The enactment of this law represents an important first step toward bringing those measures to an end within the state.<span id="more-36979"></span></p> <p>Rep. Leo Biasiucci (R) introduced House Bill 2111 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/HB2111/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2111</a>) along with 16 cosponsors on Jan. 24. The new law bans the state and all political subdivisions of the state from “using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the United States government that is inconsistent with any law” of the state of Arizona regarding the regulation of firearms.</p> <p>On March 30, the Senate passed HB2111 by a <a href="https://legiscan.com/AZ/rollcall/HB2111/id/1040786">17-13 vote</a>.  It<a href="https://legiscan.com/AZ/rollcall/HB2111/id/1014235" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> passed the House 31-29</a>. With Gov. Ducey’s signature, the law will go into effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns sine die.</p> <p>The legislature passed and the governor signed HB2111 despite intense law enforcement lobby opposition. <a href="https://ktar.com/story/4246579/maricopa-county-sheriff-penzone-questions-purpose-of-arizona-gun-bill/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone claimed</a> the law will put police officers in an awkward position of determining the constitutionality of a law.</p> <p>&#8220;Now you’re putting officers or deputies in this position where they’re questioning whether or not some other entity will determine if it’s in conflict with the Second Amendment, therefore do we act on it? And that’s where it creates problems.”</p> <p>He clearly doesn&#8217;t understand the bill. The application is quite simple. If it&#8217;s a state law, enforce it. If not, stand down.</p> <p><strong>STRATEGY</strong></p> <p>While passage into law doesn&#8217;t end all gun control in Arizona today, it represents a  massive shift in strategy going forward.  Once in effect, HB2111 will immediately do the following:</p> <ol> <li>Ban state and local enforcement of any federal gun control measures on the books that don’t have concurrent measures in law in the state of Arizona.</li> <li>Ban state and local enforcement of any new gun control measures that might come from Washington D.C. in the future that aren’t on the books in Arizona</li> <li>Shift the focus and attention to any remaining gun control measures on the books in state law</li> <li>Encourage gun rights activists to work in future legislative sessions to repeal those state-level gun control measures as a follow-up.</li> </ol> <p>Each state-level gun control repeal would then represent a one-two punch, not only ending state enforcement, but automatically ending support for any concurrent federal gun control measure as soon as the state law repeal went into effect.</p> <p><strong>ARIZONA LAWS</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/arizona/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">According to NRA-ILA</a>, under Arizona law, there is no licensing requirement for ownership of rifles, shotguns, or handguns. And no permit to carry or registration of firearms is on the books either.</p> <p>On the other end of the spectrum, however, state law in ARS 13-3101(B) requires compliance with the National Firearms Act, but the state maintains no registry and imposes no additional requirements.</p> <p>The ATF has a pdf document that lists and details all state-level gun control measures in Arizona and would <a href="https://www.atf.gov/file/117151/download">act as a handy guide for what could be repealed in the future</a>.</p> <p>The right to keep and bear arms in the state constitution is listed in <span class="overlaySource">Article 2, Section 26.</span></p> <p><em><span class="overlayText">“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”</span></em></p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Arizona can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> (1997) serves as the cornerstone. For the majority, Justice Scalia wrote, in part:</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-by-the-governor-arizona-law-bans-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control/">Signed by the Governor: Arizona Law Bans State Enforcement of Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills 2nd Amendment 2nd Amendment Preservation Act Arizona Federal Gun Control HB2111 Mike Maharrey Tyranny Unmasked: John Taylor’s Warning About Consolidation https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/tyranny-unmasked-john-taylors-warning-about-consolidation/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:35f6abb2-e96c-042a-19a3-b1b70375a255 Wed, 07 Apr 2021 18:36:50 +0000 <p>John Taylor of Caroline’s Tyranny Unmasked explains in plain, but passionate language the dangers of centralized power, with a focus on government interference in commerce, along with taxation, parties and even so-called “national defence.” Written in 1822, it’s an essential - but ignored - polemic against the tyranny of powerful, centralized government.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/tyranny-unmasked-john-taylors-warning-about-consolidation/">Tyranny Unmasked: John Taylor’s Warning About Consolidation</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>John Taylor of Caroline’s Tyranny Unmasked explains in plain, but passionate language the dangers of centralized power, with a focus on government interference in commerce, along with taxation, parties and even so-called “national defence.” Written in 1822, it’s an essential &#8211; but ignored &#8211; polemic against the tyranny of powerful, centralized government.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: April 7, 2021 <span id="more-36982"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/jE2byiRsgxU?start=71" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/today-in-history-john-taylor-of-caroline-born/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Dave Benner: Overview of John Taylor&#8217;s life</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/200th-anniversary-of-a-great-american-demolition-of-tyranny/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Bovard: a Great American Demolition of Tyranny</a></p> <p><a href="https://lawliberty.org/classic/the-federal-republic-vs-crony-capitalism/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Aaron Coleman: The Federal Republic vs. Crony Capitalism</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/taylor-tyranny-unmasked" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Tyranny Unmasked (1822) &#8211; Full Text at LibertyFund</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-040721:7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/tyranny-unmasked-john-taylors-warning-about-606dfe5cad2feb15a005d8b1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-040721:7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1226603403835334656" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/b7ddc76a-a9fe-48bc-8831-25584a7957ec" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/4H3iSJWyUq/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/CaYkWISE6C59/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/3da45661-7ef2-424a-9490-6547f53d751a" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/976393742" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+gJN44BlMR" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1379108569484779527" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/a5789f3f-3acc-44d1-ab25-ae09cd35f955" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/tyranny-unmasked-john-taylors-warning-about-consolidation/">Tyranny Unmasked: John Taylor’s Warning About Consolidation</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video John Taylor Path to Liberty Centralization Consolidation John Taylor of Caroline tariffs Taxation Tyranny Tyranny Unmasked Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 35:14 John Taylor of Caroline’s Tyranny Unmasked explains in plain, but passionate language the dangers of centralized power, with a focus on government interference in commerce, along with taxation, parties and even so-called “national defence. John Taylor of Caroline’s Tyranny Unmasked explains in plain, but passionate language the dangers of centralized power, with a focus on government interference in commerce, along with taxation, parties and even so-called “national defence.” Written in 1822, it’s an essential - but ignored - polemic against the tyranny of powerful, centralized government.<br /> Texas House Committee Passes Bill to Ban State Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/texas-house-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-state-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:bb8f4659-b3c5-d671-e4c8-d65b8f193dba Wed, 07 Apr 2021 01:07:58 +0000 <p>The proposed law would prohibit any Texas governmental agency, including state and local police departments, from contracting with or in any other manner providing assistance to a federal agency or official with respect to the enforcement of a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation purporting to regulate a firearm, a firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition if the statute, order, rule, or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation, such as a capacity or size limitation or a registration requirement, that does not exist under the laws of the state of Texas.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/texas-house-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-state-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control/">Texas House Committee Passes Bill to Ban State Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>AUSTIN</strong>, Texas (April 6, 2021) – Today, a Texas House committee passed a bill that would ban state and local enforcement of any new federal gun control, a major step toward bringing such federal acts to an end within the state.<span id="more-36978"></span></p> <p>Rep. Justin Holland (R-Rockwall) introduced House Bill 2622 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB2622/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2622</a>) on March 17. Since then, it has garnered 49 additional cosponsors and the support of Gov. Greg Abbott.</p> <p>The proposed law would prohibit any Texas governmental agency, including state and local police departments, from contracting with or in any other manner providing assistance to a federal agency or official with respect to the enforcement of a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation purporting to regulate a firearm, a firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition if the statute, order, rule, or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation, such as a capacity or size limitation or a registration requirement, that does not exist under the laws of the state of Texas.</p> <p>“We can’t rely on the Federal Government to lead on this issue and in reality — they will do vastly more harm than good for gun rights,” Holland said in a news release announcing the introduction of the bill.</p> <p>The House State Affairs Committee held a hearing on HB2622 on April 1, an important first step in the legislative process. Today, the Committee passed the bill with a vote of 11-2.</p> <p>HB2622 is similar to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/12/texas-bill-would-set-the-foundation-for-a-gun-rights-sanctuary-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a more sweeping bill also introduced in the House</a> that would apply the same restrictions to all gun control, past, present and future. At the time of this report, it had not been scheduled for a hearing in the State Affairs Committee.</p> <p>Under HB2622, a local agency that violates the law and supports enforcement of future federal gun control would lose state grant money the following year. The legislation would also create a process for Texans to challenge state or local actions that appear to violate the proposed law.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Texas can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> (1997) serves as the cornerstone. For the majority, Justice Scalia wrote, in part:</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>Next, the bill will go to the House Calendars Committee, which is chaired by one of the bill’s coauthors, Rep. Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock). That committee will determine if or when the legislation is brought before the full House.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/texas-house-committee-passes-bill-to-ban-state-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control/">Texas House Committee Passes Bill to Ban State Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills 2nd Amendment Federal Gun Control HB2622 Texas Mike Maharrey U.S. Money Supply Continues to Increase at Record Pace as Federal Reserve Backstops Government Spending https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/06/u-s-money-supply-continues-to-increase-at-record-pace-as-federal-reserve-backstops-government-spending/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:b7654985-ce0c-d63d-ff9c-0a2e05ea9e35 Tue, 06 Apr 2021 20:03:37 +0000 <p>The Federal Reserve is the engine that runs the biggest most powerful government in the history of the world. Without the central bank monetizing the debt, the federal government would find it impossible to continue its massive warfare and welfare state.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/06/u-s-money-supply-continues-to-increase-at-record-pace-as-federal-reserve-backstops-government-spending/">U.S. Money Supply Continues to Increase at Record Pace as Federal Reserve Backstops Government Spending</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>The federal government continues to borrow and spend at a staggering rate. On March 1, <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/03/national-debt-blows-past-28-trillion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the national debt pushed above $28 trillion for the first time</a>. This rate of borrowing wouldn&#8217;t be possible without the Federal Reserve monetizing the debt through quantitative easing. In practice, the central bank buys U.S. Treasuries on the open market, creating artificial demand for U.S. bonds. The Fed pays for these Treasuries with money created out of thin air that then gets injected into the economy.<span id="more-36282"></span></p> <p>Quantitative easing has continued over the last year at a record pace, and this is reflected in the growth of the U.S. money supply.  Money supply growth <a href="https://mises.org/wire/february-money-supply-growth-hit-yet-another-all-time-high" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hit another all-time high in February</a> as the Federal Reserve continues to churn out dollars and inject them into the economy.</p> <p>As measured by the <a href="https://mises.org/library/austrian-definitions-supply-money" target="_blank" rel="noopener">True Money Supply Measure</a> (TMS), the money supply grew by 39.1 percent year-on-year. That was up slightly from January’s record growth of 38.7 percent.<span id="more-27088"></span></p> <p>To put the growth in money supply into some historic perspective, the rate in February 2020 was a mere 7.3 percent, which was a healthy increase from the under 2 percent growth we were seeing in 2019.</p> <p>February marked the eleventh month of remarkably high money supply growth in the wake of <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/federal-reserve-announces-qe-infinity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">unprecedented quantitative easing</a>, central bank asset purchases, and various <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/12/stimulus-3-0-whos-getting-paid-and-whos-paying-up/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stimulus packages</a>.</p> <p>Money supply growth also broke a record as measured by M2. By the more traditional measure, the money supply grew 27.0 percent. That compares to January’s growth rate of 25.9 percent. M2 grew 6.8 percent during February of last year.</p> <p>The “true” or Rothbard-Salerno money supply measure (TMS)—is the metric developed by economists Murray Rothbard and Joseph Salerno, and is designed to provide a better measure of money supply fluctuations than M2. This measure of the money supply differs from M2 in that it includes Treasury Department deposits at the Fed (and excludes short-time deposits, traveler’s checks, and retail money funds).</p> <p>Historically, the growth in the money supply has never been higher with the 1970s being the only period that comes close.</p> <p><a href="https://mises.org/wire/february-money-supply-growth-hit-yet-another-all-time-high" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ryan McMaken at the <em>Mises Institute</em></a> says the growth in the money supply won’t likely slow anytime soon.</p> <blockquote><p>It appears that now the United States is nearly a year into an extended economic crisis, with around 1 million new jobless claims each week from March until mid-September. Claims have remained above 600,000 every week since. Moreover, more than 3.8 million unemployed workers are currently collecting standard unemployment benefits, and total unemployment claims have failed to fall back to non-recessionary levels, even a year after <span data-scayt-word="lockdowns" data-wsc-id="klvl0gxtnedvqg3l3" data-wsc-lang="en_US">lockdowns</span> began. More than seven million additional unemployed are collecting “Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation” as of February 27.</p> <p>“The central bank continues to engage in a wide variety of unprecedented efforts to ‘stimulate’ the economy and provide income to unemployed workers and to provide liquidity to financial institutions. Moreover, as government revenues have fallen, Congress has turned to unprecedented amounts of borrowing. But in order to keep interest rates low, the Fed has been buying up trillions of dollars in assets—including government debt. This has fueled new money creation.”</p></blockquote> <p>You might be tempted to say, &#8220;So what?&#8221; This is just government number-crunching. It really has no effect on me.</p> <p>But it does.</p> <p>By definition, <a href="https://schiffgold.com/commentaries/peter-schiff-getting-the-definition-of-inflation-right/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an increase in the money supply is inflation</a>. And inflation is a hidden tax on every American.</p> <p>As the Fed creates more and more dollars, the dollars that you have in your wallet and in your bank account become worth less and less. Inflation particularly impacts the poor, those on fixed incomes, and people trying to save. We see the effects of inflation in rising prices. While the powers that be insist inflation isn&#8217;t a problem, it relentlessly chips away at your purchasing power. You know this if you&#8217;ve been to the grocery store or gas station recently.</p> <p>The level of inflation we&#8217;re seeing today (remember, money creation is by definition inflation) poses a grave danger to the economy. It could ultimately result in hyperinflation. The U.S. has escaped the fate of Zimbabwe and Venezuela so far, but just because price inflation hasn&#8217;t gotten out of control yet doesn&#8217;t mean it won&#8217;t.</p> <p>Financial analyst <a href="https://schiffgold.com/peters-podcast/peter-schiff-were-adrift-in-a-sea-of-inflation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Peter Schiff warned months ago</a> that all of the people who think this can go on forever are in for a rude awakening. Things that can’t go on forever don’t.</p> <blockquote><p>Just because we’ve gotten away with it for this long doesn’t mean we’re going to get away with it forever. … I think we’re very, very close to a major collapse of the dollar, a major breakout in the price of gold, to a breakdown in the bond market. And it isn’t going to happen overnight. It’s going to sneak up on people when they least expect it. … It’s not a crisis until it becomes a crisis. And then it becomes a crisis very, very quickly.</p></blockquote> <p>The Federal Reserve is the engine that runs the biggest most powerful government in the history of the world. Without the central bank monetizing the debt, the federal government would find it impossible to continue its massive warfare and welfare state.</p> <p>Money is power and the Federal Reserve serves as an unlimited spigot pumping dollars into the system, enabling the biggest government in the history of the world to keep on truckin’. Without the Fed, there would be no foreign wars. There would be no massive, unsustainable social programs. There would be no police state. There would be no corporate welfare programs. The federal government would truly be limited.</p> <p>If you want to end unconstitutional, overreaching federal power — end the Fed.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/06/u-s-money-supply-continues-to-increase-at-record-pace-as-federal-reserve-backstops-government-spending/">U.S. Money Supply Continues to Increase at Record Pace as Federal Reserve Backstops Government Spending</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Federal Funding Federal Reserve money supply national debt quantitative easing Mike Maharrey Signed as Law: South Dakota Bill Sets the Stage to Expand Healthcare Freedom https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-south-dakota-bill-sets-the-stage-to-expand-healthcare-freedom/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:27826527-2cec-96a9-a1bb-fe457568c61b Tue, 06 Apr 2021 17:53:48 +0000 <p>The legislation specifies that direct primary care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code. The new law stipulates that “a primary care provider or agent of a health care provider is not required to obtain a certificate of authority or license under this act to market, sell, or offer to sell a direct primary care agreement.”</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-south-dakota-bill-sets-the-stage-to-expand-healthcare-freedom/">Signed as Law: South Dakota Bill Sets the Stage to Expand Healthcare Freedom</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>PIERRE</strong>, S.D. (March 12, 2021) – Last week, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem signed a bill that will help facilitate healthcare freedom outside of government insurance regulatory schemes.<span id="more-36970"></span></p> <p>Rep. Tamara St. John (R-Sisseton), along with 10 Republican cosponsors, introduced House Bill 1131 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/SD/bill/HB1131/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1131</a>) on Jan. 28. The legislation specifies that direct primary care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code. The new law stipulates that “a primary care provider or agent of a health care provider is not required to obtain a certificate of authority or license under this act to market, sell, or offer to sell a direct primary care agreement.”</p> <p>The new law also includes provisions defining direct primary care agreements and establishing modest requirements.</p> <p>On March 8, <a href="https://legiscan.com/SD/rollcall/HB1131/id/1024045" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Senate passed HB1131 by a 35-0 vote</a>.  <a href="https://legiscan.com/SD/rollcall/HB1131/id/1014876" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The House passed the measure 63-2</a>. With Gov. Noem’s signature, the law goes into effect July 1, 2021.</p> <p>According to <em>Michigan Capitol Confidential</em>, by removing a third-party payer from the equation, medical retainer agreements help both physicians and patients minimize costs. Jack Spencer <a href="http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/20924" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">writes</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>“Under medical retainer agreements, patients make monthly payments to a physician who in return agrees to provide a menu of routine services at no extra charge. Because no insurance company stands between patient and doctor, the hassles and expense of bureaucratic red tape are eliminated, which have resulted in dramatic cost reductions. Routine primary care services (and the bureaucracy required to reimburse them) are estimated to consume 40 cents out of every dollar spent on insurance policies, so lower premiums for a given amount of coverage are another potential benefit.”</p></blockquote> <p>This represents the kind of cost control Obamacare promised but failed to deliver. Tom Woods <a href="http://tomwoods.com/blog/capitalism-vs-american-health-care/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">interviewed a Kansas doctor</a> who utilizes the direct primary care model. Dr. Josh Umbehr’s practice demonstrates the cost savings possible when doctors are unfettered from the bureaucratic health insurance system.</p> <p>Under Obamacare, regulations define such programs as a primary care service and not a health insurance plan, and current IRS policy treats these monthly fee arrangements just like another health plan.</p> <p><strong>A FIRST STEP</strong></p> <p>Even while controlling both houses of Congress, the Republicans never did repeal Obamacare. And if they had passed one of their “repeal and replace” bills, the changes to the ACA proposed by the GOP would have arguably made things worse. The Republican Congress did zero out the penalty for not buying health insurance in their tax reform bill, all other Obamacare rules and regulations remain in place. And in all likelihood, Democrat-controlled Congress will likely reinstitute the penalty and could expand government intervention into the healthcare marketplace.</p> <p>Regardless, <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/01/08/states-should-help-bring-down-obamacare/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state actions can help completely bring down the Affordable Care Act</a>, or any national healthcare plan Congress comes up with in the future.</p> <p>Oftentimes, supporters of Obamacare criticize opponents for not having any alternative. Direct primary care offers one.</p> <p>These direct patient/doctor agreements allow a system uncontrolled by government regulations to develop. It makes doctors responsive to patients, not insurance company bureaucrats or government rule-makers. Allowing patients to contract directly with doctors via medical retainer agreements opens the market. Under such agreements, market forces will set prices for services based on demand instead of relying on central planners with a political agenda. The end result will be better care delivered at a lower cost.</p> <p>By incentivizing creative healthcare solutions, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/markets-and-individual-action-helping-to-undermine-obamacare/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the market will naturally provide better options, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma</a>, This facility operates completely outside of the insurance system, providing a low-cost alternative for many surgical procedures.</p> <p>A more open healthcare marketplace within a state will help spur de facto nullification of the federal program by providing an affordable alternative. As patients flock to these arrangements and others spurred by ingenuity and market forces, the old system will begin to crumble.</p> <p>The enactment of HB1131 takes the first step toward healthcare freedom in South Dakota and creates a stepping stone to further action to nullify the onerous Affordable Care act. With this new law in place, the people of South Dakota can now take further steps to fully extricate themselves from Obamacare for good.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-south-dakota-bill-sets-the-stage-to-expand-healthcare-freedom/">Signed as Law: South Dakota Bill Sets the Stage to Expand Healthcare Freedom</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Health Care State Bills Direct Primary Care HB1131 Healthcare Obamacare South Dakota Amanda Bowers Nullifying Federal Gun Laws – and Everything Else https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/nullifying-federal-gun-laws-and-everything-else/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:9714d515-6763-5704-4035-658cad252525 Tue, 06 Apr 2021 17:48:49 +0000 <p>I recently appeared on the David Knight Show and talked about state nullification - specifically applying the strategy to federal gun control. I suggested that the gun people need to show the same courage as the weed people.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/nullifying-federal-gun-laws-and-everything-else/">Nullifying Federal Gun Laws – and Everything Else</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>I recently appeared on the <a href="http://thedavidknightshow.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">David Knight Show</a> and talked about state nullification &#8211; specifically applying the strategy to federal gun control. I suggested that the gun people need to show the same courage as the weed people.<span id="more-36958"></span></p> <p>During the interview, I discuss why the nullification strategy of refusing to cooperate with federal enforcement is so effective, using the marijuana issue as an example. I then explain how this strategy can be applied to federal gun control and many other policy areas. David and I also discuss how establishment Republicans shut down nullification bills in South Dakota, and we touch on the surveillance issue.</p> <p><iframe class="wp-embedded-content" sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" title="INTERVIEW: Maharrey on State Nullification of Gun Control, Pandemic" width="459" height="344" src="https://www.bitchute.com/embed/eLcy17Tg38ff/?feature=oembed#?secret=as7bdxSNUe" data-secret="as7bdxSNUe" frameborder="0"></iframe></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/nullifying-federal-gun-laws-and-everything-else/">Nullifying Federal Gun Laws – and Everything Else</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Interviews Nullification Right to Keep and Bear Arms firearms Marijuana Mike Maharrey Signed as Law: Iowa Enacts “Constitutional Carry” Bill https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-iowa-enacts-constitutional-carry-bill/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:15dbd4ce-73c9-58cd-1aa8-c9e1b756f0de Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:30:15 +0000 <p>The new law eliminates the permit requirement for carrying handguns in the state. It also loosens some restrictions on the possession and transfer of firearms. The state will continue to issue concealed carry permits under a revamped system for those wishing to have a CCDW license in order to carry in states with reciprocity with Iowa.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-iowa-enacts-constitutional-carry-bill/">Signed as Law: Iowa Enacts “Constitutional Carry” Bill</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>DES  MOINES</strong>, Iowa (April 6, 2021) – Last Friday, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a “Constitutional Carry” bill into law, making it legal for Iowans to carry a firearm without a permit and fostering an environment more hostile to federal gun control.<span id="more-36969"></span></p> <p>The House Public Safety Committee introduced House Bill 756 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/IA/bill/HF756/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HF756</a>) on March 5. The new law eliminates the permit requirement for carrying handguns in the state. It also loosens some restrictions on the possession and transfer of firearms. The state will continue to issue concealed carry permits under a revamped system for those wishing to have a CCDW license in order to carry in states with reciprocity with Iowa.</p> <p>On March 22, <a href="https://legiscan.com/IA/rollcall/HF756/id/1033642" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Senate passed HF756 by a 31-17 vote</a>. The <a href="https://legiscan.com/IA/rollcall/HF756/id/1030888" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House previously approved the measure 60-37</a>. With Gov. Reynolds’ signature, the new law will go into effect July 1, 2021.</p> <p>“Today I signed legislation protecting the Second Amendment rights of Iowa’s law-abiding citizens while still preventing the sale of firearms to criminals and other dangerous individuals,” Reynolds said in a statement Friday afternoon.</p> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL GUN CONTROL</strong></p> <p>While permitless carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway.</p> <p>The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”</p> <p>Less restrictive state gun laws will likely have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce any future federal gun control, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts.</p> <p>State actions such as passing HF756 would lower barriers for those wanting to the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-iowa-enacts-constitutional-carry-bill/">Signed as Law: Iowa Enacts “Constitutional Carry” Bill</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Concealed Carry Constitutional Carry HF756 Iowa Permitless Carry Mike Maharrey Textualism and War Powers https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/textualism-and-war-powers/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:93aced6f-dea8-3f88-4996-9f62dc5567b9 Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:17:25 +0000 <p>The article was inspired by the apparent disconnect between the common assumption in the post-ratification period that the Constitution limited the President's independent ability to initiate war and the text's reference only to the power to "declare" war -- which sound like a reference only to formal pronouncements.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/textualism-and-war-powers/">Textualism and War Powers</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>I have posted my article <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3805978">Textualism and War Powers</a> (University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 4, p. 1543, 2002) (96 pages) on SSRN.  It&#8217;s from quite a while back but I think it remains a significant contribution.  Here is the abstract:</p> <blockquote><p>This Article explores the eighteenth-century use of the phrase &#8220;declare war,&#8221; with the goal of shedding some light upon the original understanding of the Constitution&#8217;s Declare War Clause It finds that &#8220;declaring&#8221; war in the eighteenth century had a broader meaning than is commonly supposed. Nations could declare war by formal proclamation, but nations could also &#8220;declare&#8221; by action alone. An armed attack showing an intent to settle differences between nations by force created a state of war between those nation&amp; Launching such an attack, even in the absence of a formal proclamation, was called &#8220;declaring&#8221; war. As the Article explains this provides a textual basis for the common assertion that Congress&#8217;s constitutional power &#8220;to declare War&#8221; broadly encompasses the power to initiate warfare. It also refutes the claim that the President can order military attacks upon foreign powers without Congress&#8217;s approval so long as no formal declaration is involved. The Article further argues however, that since Congress&#8217;s constitutional power is only to declare war (by proclamation or by authorizing an attack), presidential actions that do not create a state of war-even if they involve the use of military force or the threat or likelihood of war-do not require congressional authorization.</p></blockquote> <p>The article was inspired by the apparent disconnect between the common assumption in the post-ratification period that the Constitution limited the President&#8217;s independent ability to initiate war and the text&#8217;s reference only to the power to &#8220;declare&#8221; war &#8212; which sound like a reference only to formal pronouncements.  As the abstract indicates, on further investigation it seemed clear (to me anyway) that &#8220;declare&#8221; war was used in a much broader sense in the eighteenth century, referring not just to formal proclamations but also to commencement of hostilities.  Thus there actually isn&#8217;t any tension between the text and the common founding-era interpretation of it.</p> <p>Saikrishna Prakash in a subsequent <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=977244">article</a> undertook a much more broad ranging investigation of eighteenth century sources and reached a similar conclusion about the meaning of &#8220;declare.&#8221;  I think it&#8217;s now a fairly common view among textualist/originalists.</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-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/textualism-and-war-powers/">Textualism and War Powers</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Executive War Powers Declare Declare War President war Michael D. Ramsey Why we get it wrong about the “antifederalists” https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/05/why-we-get-it-wrong-about-the-antifederalists/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:d9903126-40f9-de3f-d906-a50014c00930 Mon, 05 Apr 2021 23:20:30 +0000 <p>The glue that held all of the "antis" together was fear of nationalization or centralization. They didn't believe in an American national government.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/05/why-we-get-it-wrong-about-the-antifederalists/">Why we get it wrong about the “antifederalists”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>If you take a standard American history course at your college or university, they professor will probably tell you that the &#8220;antifederalists&#8221; opposed the Constitution because it did not contain a bill of rights. Period. That&#8217;s it.</p> <p>Dr. Establishment Professor might also label these people anti-government radicals or link them to modern tea party groups.</p> <p>Translation: they&#8217;re dangerous.</p> <p>But what if all of this is wrong? If you are reading this email then you probably know I am going to throw some cold water on this interpretation.</p> <p>Part of it is true. A substantial number of so called &#8220;antifederalists&#8221; wanted a bill of rights, but that&#8217;s only part of the story.</p> <p>The glue that held all of the &#8220;antis&#8221; together was fear of nationalization or centralization. They didn&#8217;t believe in an American national government.</p> <p>And they weren&#8217;t really &#8220;antifederalists.&#8221; They clearly wanted to maintain the original federal republic as under the Articles of Confederation making them the real &#8220;federalists&#8221; and their opponents the &#8220;nationalists.&#8221; Of course, that is not how establishment history remembers those men.</p> <p>Which is why it&#8217;s so refreshing to read people who think otherwise, like Aaron Coleman or Michael Faber.</p> <p>Coleman wrote a <a href="https://lawliberty.org/book-review/remembering-the-anti-federalists-rightly/">great review</a> of Faber&#8217;s new book at Law and Liberty.</p> <p>Coleman&#8217;s money quote: &#8220;This overlooks how Anti-Federalists feared consolidation above all other issues precisely because the loss of state sovereignty equated to the loss of both liberty and popular government.&#8221;</p> <p>If you want to understand &#8220;think locally, act locally,&#8221; then you need to understand the &#8220;antis.&#8221;</p> <p>But I have also argued that the real fire comes not from the antis but from the proponents of the Constitution. They sold the document to the States based on the promise that it did not create a national government and that the States still retained control of most aspects of American government.</p> <p>A great sales job to be sure, but the ultimate bamboozle.</p> <p>I discuss Coleman, Faber, and the antis in Episode 281 of The Brion McClanahan Show.</p> <p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE2CIv-JyG8">You can watch it here.</a><br /> <iframe title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/JE2CIv-JyG8" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p> <p>OR</p> <p><a href="https://www.brionmcclanahan.com/blog/podcast-episode-281-the-antifederalists/">You can listen to it here.</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/05/why-we-get-it-wrong-about-the-antifederalists/">Why we get it wrong about the “antifederalists”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> AntiFederalists Founding Fathers centralization Consolidation History Brion McClanahan To the Governor: West Virginia Passes Bill to Further Expand Healthcare Freedom https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-west-virginia-passes-bill-to-further-expand-healthcare-freedom/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:1ce0f7e0-01d6-a9db-4958-b61dae526192 Mon, 05 Apr 2021 20:32:52 +0000 <p>HB2877 would expand direct health care agreements beyond primary care to include all “medical care services.”  The proposed law defines “medical care services ” as “a screen, assessment, diagnosis or treatment for the purpose of promotion of health or the detection and management of disease or injury within the competency and training” of a medical care provider.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-west-virginia-passes-bill-to-further-expand-healthcare-freedom/">To the Governor: West Virginia Passes Bill to Further Expand Healthcare Freedom</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>CHARLESTON</strong>, W. Va. (April 5, 2021) – Today, the West Virginia Senate gave final approval to a bill that would expand policies to help facilitate healthcare freedom outside of government regulatory schemes.<span id="more-36927"></span></p> <p>Del. Steve Westfall (R-Ripley) introduced House Bill 2877 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/bill/HB2877/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2877</a>) on March 3. In 2017, West Virginia enacted a law specifying that direct primary care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors and patients from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code. That law also stipulates that neither direct primary care providers nor their agents are required to obtain a certification of authority or license under chapter thirty-three to market, sell, or offer to sell a direct primary care agreement.</p> <p>HB2877 would expand direct health care agreements beyond primary care to include all “medical care services.”  The proposed law defines “medical care services ” as “a screen, assessment, diagnosis or treatment for the purpose of promotion of health or the detection and management of disease or injury within the competency and training” of a medical care provider.</p> <p>The enactment of HB2877 would open the door for specialists, chiropractors, and other healthcare providers to open practices based on the direct primary care model implemented in 2017.</p> <p>On March 31, the Senate Health and Human Services Committee passed HB2877. <a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/rollcall/HB2877/id/1028069" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The House previously passed HB2877 by a 98-0 vote</a>. Today, the full Senate concurred with a <a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/rollcall/HB2877/id/1044414" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vote of 34-0</a>.</p> <p>According to <em>Michigan Capitol Confidential</em>, by removing a third-party payer from the equation, medical retainer agreements help both physicians and patients minimize costs. Jack Spencer <a href="http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/20924" target="_blank" rel="noopener">writes</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>“Under medical retainer agreements, patients make monthly payments to a physician who in return agrees to provide a menu of routine services at no extra charge. Because no insurance company stands between patient and doctor, the hassles and expense of bureaucratic red tape are eliminated, which have resulted in dramatic cost reductions. Routine primary care services (and the bureaucracy required to reimburse them) are estimated to consume 40 cents out of every dollar spent on insurance policies, so lower premiums for a given amount of coverage are another potential benefit.”</p></blockquote> <p>This represents the kind of cost control Obamacare promised but failed to deliver. In 2015, Tom Woods <a href="http://tomwoods.com/blog/capitalism-vs-american-health-care/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interviewed a Kansas doctor</a> who utilizes the direct primary care model. Dr. Josh Umbehr’s practice demonstrates the cost savings possible when doctors are unfettered from the bureaucratic health insurance system.</p> <p>Under Obamacare, regulations define such programs as a primary care service and not a health insurance plan, and current IRS policy treats these monthly fee arrangements just like another health plan.</p> <p><strong>A SECOND STEP</strong></p> <p>HB2877 underscores an important strategic point. Passing bills that take a step forward sets the stage, even if they aren’t perfect. Once the door is open, the way is cleared for additional steps. You can’t take the second step before you take the first.</p> <p>Even while controlling both houses of Congress, the Republicans never did repeal Obamacare. And if they had passed one of their “repeal and replace” bills, the changes to the ACA proposed by the GOP would have arguably made things worse. The Republican Congress did zero out the penalty for not buying health insurance in their tax reform bill, all other Obamacare rules and regulations remain in place. And in all likelihood, Democrat-controlled Congress will likely reinstitute the penalty and could expand government intervention into the healthcare marketplace.</p> <p>Regardless, <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/01/08/states-should-help-bring-down-obamacare/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state actions can help completely bring down the Affordable Care Act</a>, or any national healthcare plan Congress comes up with in the future.</p> <p>Oftentimes, supporters of Obamacare criticize opponents for not having any alternative. Direct primary care offers one.</p> <p>These direct patient/doctor agreements allow a system uncontrolled by government regulations to develop. It makes doctors responsive to patients, not insurance company bureaucrats or government rule-makers. Allowing patients to contract directly with doctors via medical retainer agreements opens the market. Under such agreements, market forces will set prices for services based on demand instead of relying on central planners with a political agenda. The end result will be better care delivered at a lower cost.</p> <p>By incentivizing creative healthcare solutions, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/markets-and-individual-action-helping-to-undermine-obamacare/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the market will naturally provide better options, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma</a>, This facility operates completely outside of the insurance system, providing a low-cost alternative for many surgical procedures.</p> <p>A more open healthcare marketplace within a state will help spur de facto nullification of the federal program by providing an affordable alternative. As patients flock to these arrangements and others spurred by ingenuity and market forces, the old system will begin to crumble.</p> <p>The enactment of HB2877 would take another step toward healthcare freedom in West Virginia and creates a stepping stone to further action to nullify the onerous Affordable Care act. With this new law in place, the people of West Virginia should take further steps to fully extricate themselves from Obamacare for good.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB2877 will head to the desk of Gov. Jim Justice, where he must sign or veto legislation within 5 days of transmittal (excluding Sunday), or it becomes law without his signature.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-west-virginia-passes-bill-to-further-expand-healthcare-freedom/">To the Governor: West Virginia Passes Bill to Further Expand Healthcare Freedom</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Health Care State Bills Direct Primary Care HB2877 Healthcare Obamacare West Virginia Mike Maharrey To the Governor: Arkansas Passes Bill to Create Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-arkansas-passes-bill-to-create-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d2ea598d-3853-d4b4-bf84-aade09eb6d9d Mon, 05 Apr 2021 20:26:10 +0000 <p>LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (April 5, 2021) – Last week, the Arkansas Senate gave final approval to a bill that would create a mechanism to review presidential executive orders and end state cooperation with enforcement of certain EOs determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. This process could set the stage to nullify some executive orders, but [&#8230;]</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-arkansas-passes-bill-to-create-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/">To the Governor: Arkansas Passes Bill to Create Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>LITTLE ROCK</strong>, Ark. (April 5, 2021) – Last week, the Arkansas Senate gave final approval to a bill that would create a mechanism to review presidential executive orders and end state cooperation with enforcement of certain EOs determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. This process could set the stage to nullify some executive orders, but without further action, will have no practical impact in the state.<span id="more-36957"></span></p> <p>Rep. DeAnn Vaught (R-Horatio), along with 43 fellow Republican cosponsors, introduced House Bill 1637 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/bill/HB1637/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1637</a>) on March 4. Under the proposed law, the Joint Budget Committee (during the legislative session) or the Legislative Council (during the interim) <em>may  </em>“review <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/12/whats-the-deal-with-executive-orders/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an executive order</a> issued by the President of the United States that has not been affirmed by a vote of the United States Congress and signed into law as prescribed by the United States Constitution.” The review process is complex and would involve an appropriate standing committee in the legislature along with the state attorney general.</p> <p>Ultimately, the proposed law would prohibit the state, a political subdivision, or any entity that receives an appropriation of funds from the General Assembly from using state resources and personnel to implement a presidential executive order <em>if</em> there is a determination that EO is unconstitutional, approved by an affirmative vote by the Legislative Council, or the Joint Budget Committee. The governor would then have to direct state agencies to cease implementation of the executive order.</p> <p>The law would cover federal EOs that relate to any of the following:</p> <ul> <li>Pandemics or other health emergencies</li> <li>The regulation of natural resources, including coal and oil</li> <li>The regulation of the agriculture industry</li> <li>The use of land</li> <li>The regulation of the financial sector as it relates to environmental, social, or governance standards</li> <li>The regulation of the constitutional right to bear arms</li> </ul> <p>On April 1, the Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/HB1637/id/1043006" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed HB1637 by a 27-7 vote</a>. The House previously <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/HB1637/id/1031406" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed the measure by a 75-22 vote</a>. It now goes to Gov. Asa Hutchinson&#8217;s desk for his consideration.</p> <p><strong>THE PROCESS IN PRACTICE</strong></p> <p>The enactment of HB1637 would create a process to potentially push back against overreaching executive authority. Upon an order by the governor based on a determination of unconstitutionality, the state would be required to <strong>withdraw all resources and cease any cooperation with enforcement or implementation of the action</strong>. But in practice, the bill would likely have very little if any effect.</p> <p>In the first place, it does not require any review. The language says “may review.” That leaves it to the discretion of the Joint Budget Committee or Legislative Council to take action on a specific EO. The bill doesn’t require them to do anything. It&#8217;s nothing but a suggestion.</p> <p>There is also no requirement for the governor to end state enforcement of an executive order even if it is ultimately determined to be unconstitutional. That action would be solely at his discretion.</p> <p>In the second place, this cumbersome review process isn’t even necessary. The legislature already has the authority to review executive orders and prohibit their implementation for any reason whatsoever. In fact, the legislature could simply pass a bill prohibiting state enforcement of specific types of executive orders without any lengthy and unwieldy constitutional review. The state has the right to direct its personnel and resources as it sees fit. It can prohibit the enforcement of federal laws or the implementation of federal programs for any reason at all. Arkansas could withdraw state resources from the enforcement of federal acts just because it’s Tuesday and there’s snow on the ground.</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing or implementing certain federal acts rests on a well-established legal principle known as <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the anti-commandeering doctrine</a>. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program – whether constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>Based on James Madison’s <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/07/the-blueprint-james-madisons-advice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed this type of approach would be extremely effective. In a televised discussion on federal gun laws, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>Gov. Hutchinson will have five days (excluding Sunday) from the date HB1637 is transmitted to his office to sign or veto the bill. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-arkansas-passes-bill-to-create-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/">To the Governor: Arkansas Passes Bill to Create Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Federal Review State Bills anti-commandeerig Arkansas Constitution Executive Orders HB1637 Mike Maharrey Connecticut Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Prohibit “No-Knock” Warrants https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/connecticut-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-prohibit-no-knock-warrants/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:7b14157a-ecd2-3a9f-eed7-6162f1388f8c Mon, 05 Apr 2021 20:19:20 +0000 <p>Under the proposed law, law enforcement officers would be prohibited from seeking, executing, or participating in the execution of a no-knock search warrant.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/connecticut-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-prohibit-no-knock-warrants/">Connecticut Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Prohibit “No-Knock” Warrants</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>HARTFORD</strong>, Conn. (April 5, 2021) – Last week, a Connecticut joint committee held a hearing on a bill that would prohibit “no-knock” warrants and take a step toward nullifying several Supreme Court opinions in practice and effect.<span id="more-36947"></span></p> <p>The House Judiciary Committee and two Republicans introduced Senate Bill 1093 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CT/bill/SB01093/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB1093</a>) on March 25. The legislation would make several police reforms including banning no-knock warrants. Under the proposed law, law enforcement officers would be prohibited from seeking, executing, or participating in the execution of a no-knock search warrant.</p> <p>SB1093 defines a &#8220;no-knock warrant&#8221; as &#8220;a warrant authorizing police officers to enter certain premises without first knocking and announcing their presence or purpose prior to entering the property.&#8221;</p> <blockquote><p>A search warrant authorized under this section shall require that an officer provide notice of such officer&#8217;s identity, authority and purpose prior to entering the place to be searched for the execution of such search warrant. Prior to undertaking any search or seizure pursuant to the search warrant, the executing officer shall read and give a copy of the search warrant to the person to be searched or the owner of the place to be searched or, if the owner is not present, to any occupant of the place to be searched.</p></blockquote> <p>On March 31, the Joint Judiciary Committee held a hearing on SB1093, an important first step in the legislative process.</p> <p><strong>Nullifying the Supreme Court</strong></p> <p>Passage of SB1093 would take a big step toward effectively nullifying and making irrelevant several Supreme Court opinions that give police across the U.S. legal cover for conducting no-knock raids.</p> <p>In the 1995 case <em><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15506865603077276139&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wilson v. Arkansas</a></em>, the Supreme Court established that police must peacefully knock, announce their presence, and allow time for the occupants to open the door before entering a home to serve a warrant. But the Court allowed for “exigent circumstance” exceptions if police fear violence, if the suspect is a flight risk, or if officers fear the suspect will destroy evidence.</p> <p>As journalist <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/03/no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-was-illegal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Radley Balko notes</a>, police utilized this exception to the fullest extent, “simply declaring in search warrant affidavits that <i>all</i> drug dealers are a threat to dispose of evidence, flee or assault the officers at the door.”</p> <p>The SCOTUS eliminated this blanket exception in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10920539616941250099&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i>Richards v. Wisconsin</i></a>  (1997) requiring police to show why a specific individual is a threat to dispose of evidence, commit an act of violence or flee from police. But even with the opinion, the bar for obtaining a no-knock warrant remains low.</p> <blockquote><p>“In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a <strong>reasonable suspicion</strong> that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” [Emphasis added]</p></blockquote> <p>Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low legal bar to meet. Through this exception, police can justify no-knock entry on any warrant application. In effect, the parameters in the SCOTUS ruling make no-knock the norm instead of the exception.</p> <p>A third Supreme Court ruling effectively eliminated the consequences for violating the “knock and announce” requirement even without a no-knock warrant. In <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1360.pdf">Hudson v. Michigan</a></em> (2006), the High Court held that evidence seized in violation of knock and announce was not subject to the exclusionary rule. In other words, police could still use the evidence in court even though they technically gathered it illegally.</p> <p>Significantly, were it not for the dubious “<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>” made up by the Supreme Crout based on the 14th Amendment that purportedly empowers the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, these cases would have never gone to federal court and we wouldn’t have these blanket rules.</p> <p>Without specific restrictions from the state, police officers generally operate within the parameters set by the High Court. By passing restrictions on no-knock warrants, states set standards that go beyond the Supreme Court limits and in effect, nullify the SCOTUS opinion.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>The <a href="https://www.cga.ct.gov/jud/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joint Judiciary Committee</a> must pass SB1093 by a majority vote before it can move forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/connecticut-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-prohibit-no-knock-warrants/">Connecticut Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Prohibit “No-Knock” Warrants</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Police State Bills Connecticut no-knock warrant Police-State SB1093 Mike Maharrey Texas House Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Ban State Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/texas-house-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-ban-state-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4c82a3af-ad04-be98-40b1-ac6ff7676e4c Mon, 05 Apr 2021 19:17:34 +0000 <p>The proposed law would prohibit any Texas governmental agency, including state and local police departments, from contracting with or in any other manner providing assistance to a federal agency or official with respect to the enforcement of a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation purporting to regulate a firearm, a firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition if the statute, order, rule, or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation, such as a capacity or size limitation or a registration requirement, that does not exist under the laws of the state of Texas.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/texas-house-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-ban-state-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control/">Texas House Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Ban State Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>AUSTIN</strong>, Texas (April 5, 2021) – Last week, a Texas House committee held a hearing on a bill that would take on future federal gun control. Passage into law would represent the first step toward ending enforcement of some federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.<span id="more-36959"></span></p> <p>A coalition of five Republicans introduced House Bill 2622 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB2622/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB2622</a>) on March 17. The proposed law would prohibit any Texas governmental agency, including state and local police departments, from contracting with or in any other manner providing assistance to a federal agency or official with respect to the enforcement of a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation purporting to regulate a firearm, a firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition if the statute, order, rule, or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation, such as a capacity or size limitation or a registration requirement, that does not exist under the laws of the state of Texas.</p> <p>The House State Affairs Committee held a hearing on HB2622 on April 1, an important first step in the legislative process.</p> <p>HB2622 is similar to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/12/texas-bill-would-set-the-foundation-for-a-gun-rights-sanctuary-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a more sweeping bill also introduced in the House</a> that would apply the same restrictions to all gun control, past, present and future. At the time of this report, it had not been scheduled for a hearing in the State Affairs Committee.</p> <p>Under HB2622, a local agency that violates the law and supports enforcement of future federal gun control would lose state grant money the following year. The legislation would also create a process for Texans to challenge state or local actions that appear to violate the proposed law.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Texas can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> (1997) serves as the cornerstone. For the majority, Justice Scalia wrote, in part:</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>The House State Affairs Committee needs to take  HB2622 up for a vote and pass it by a majority before it can move forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/texas-house-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-ban-state-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control/">Texas House Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Ban State Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills 2nd Amendment 2nd Amendment Preservation Act Federal Gun Control HB2622 Texas Mike Maharrey The History behind the Three-Fifths Compromise https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/the-history-behind-the-three-fifths-compromise/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:39faa835-022f-4c6f-0485-193a6371632b Mon, 05 Apr 2021 18:39:33 +0000 <p>Of all the compromises which produced the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the Three-Fifths Compromise is probably considered the most controversial today. But in order to understand what it actually was all about, it’s important to set aside preconceived notions and look at the history behind it - going back more than a decade to the Articles of Confederation.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/the-history-behind-the-three-fifths-compromise/">The History behind the Three-Fifths Compromise</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Of all the compromises which produced the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the Three-Fifths Compromise is probably considered the most controversial today. But in order to understand what it actually was all about, it’s important to set aside preconceived notions and look at the history behind it &#8211; going back more than a decade to the Articles of Confederation.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: April 5, 2021 <span id="more-36960"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/bTR3aNDN5SI?start=47" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Wiki: Three-Fifths Compromise</a></p> <p><a href="https://constitution.laws.com/three-fifths-compromise" rel="noopener" target="_blank">What was the Three-Fifths Compromise?</a></p> <p><a href="https://taxfoundation.org/constitution-day-tax-policy-constitutional-convention/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">How Failed Tax Policy Led to the Constitutional Convention</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/02/the-three-fifths-compromise-was-not-based-on-racism/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The ‘Three-Fifths Compromise’ was not based on racism</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&#038;psid=163" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Digital History: The Three-Fifth Compromise</a></p> <p><a href="https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/1043901/Tanguay_georgetown_0076M_13619.pdf?sequence=1&#038;isAllowed=y" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Michael Tanguay &#8211; Masters thesis at Georgetown</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/events-african-american-history/three-fifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">BlackPast: The Three-Fifths Clause</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/winter/garrisons-constitution-2.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-040521:b" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/the-history-behind-the-three-fifths-compromise-606b54d7397fa2ce0434da1c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-040521:b" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1225870801811554304" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/fadcb1dd-f75e-4cdd-8b30-91f06a4c4bb5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/4H3iSJWyUq/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/CaYkWISE6C59/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/3da45661-7ef2-424a-9490-6547f53d751a" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/976393742" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+gJN44BlMR" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1379108569484779527" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/a5789f3f-3acc-44d1-ab25-ae09cd35f955" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/the-history-behind-the-three-fifths-compromise/">The History behind the Three-Fifths Compromise</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Charles Pinckney Constitution Gouverneur Morris Path to Liberty Three-Fifths Clause articles of confederation History James Wilson Slavery Three-Fifths Compromise William Davie Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 39:29 Of all the compromises which produced the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the Three-Fifths Compromise is probably considered the most controversial today. But in order to understand what it actually was all about, Of all the compromises which produced the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the Three-Fifths Compromise is probably considered the most controversial today. But in order to understand what it actually was all about, it’s important to set aside preconceived notions and look at the history behind it - going back more than a decade to the Articles of Confederation.<br /> Maryland House Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Access to State Driver License Database for Immigration Enforcement https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/maryland-house-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-access-to-state-driver-license-database-for-immigration-enforcement/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:a3ece679-e464-18ef-c78b-e699ec35046f Mon, 05 Apr 2021 11:08:13 +0000 <p>ANNAPOLIS, Md. (April 5, 2021) &#8211; Last month, the Maryland House passed a bill that would prohibit state and local agencies from disclosing information in the state&#8217;s driver license database to the feds for the purpose of immigration enforcement without a warrant. Del. Dana Stein (D) introduced House Bill 23 (HB23) on Jan. 13. Under [&#8230;]</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/maryland-house-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-access-to-state-driver-license-database-for-immigration-enforcement/">Maryland House Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Access to State Driver License Database for Immigration Enforcement</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>ANNAPOLIS</strong>, Md. (April 5, 2021) &#8211; Last month, the Maryland House passed a bill that would prohibit state and local agencies from disclosing information in the state&#8217;s driver license database to the feds for the purpose of immigration enforcement without a warrant.<span id="more-36956"></span></p> <p>Del. Dana Stein (D) introduced House Bill 23 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB23/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB23</a>) on Jan. 13. Under the proposed law, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) would be prohibited from disclosing personal information in its databases to a federal agent or federal agency for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement without a warrant issued by a federal or state court. The legislation would also prohibit any state agency, political subdivision, or state contractor from disclosing personal information or photographs of an individual to a federal agent or agency for immigration enforcement without a search warrant. This would effectively end warrantless facial recognition searches of the state&#8217;s driver license database by ICE.</p> <p>In 2013, Maryland created a &#8220;second-tier&#8221; driver license for undocumented residents. According to news reports, about 40,000 undocumented Maryland residents got these provisional licenses. Since then, ICE has used the MVA database to locate and deport undocumented immigrants. Passage of HB23 would require ICE agents to get a warrant before accessing the MVA databases.</p> <p>On March  22, HB23 passed <a href="https://legiscan.com/MD/rollcall/HB23/id/1034529" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the House 86-47</a>.</p> <p><a href="https://www.marylandmatters.org/2021/03/23/state-and-local-leaders-push-to-limit-marylands-relationship-with-ice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">According to <em>Maryland Matters</em></a>, Stein said the bill wouldn&#8217;t stop ICE from doing its job. He said the proposed law simply seeks to prohibit the agency from using routine traffic stops and data collection for the express purpose of deporting undocumented immigrants.</p> <p>“This bill does not change the rules,” he said. “It’s responding to bending the rules by ICE.”</p> <p>In <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-0303-crw-maryland-immigration-bills-20210302-vwd7tivk5nadjnvyqkmr3wiszu-story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an op-ed</a>, the <em>Baltimore Sun</em> called the ICE practice of using driver&#8217;s licenses to find and deport Maryland residents &#8220;morally unconscionable.&#8221;</p> <p>&#8220;It defeats the purpose of the intent of the 2013 bill: to keep our roads safer&#8221;</p> <p><strong>LEGALITY</strong></p> <p>Maryland&#8217;s ability to control its personnel and resources 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.</p> <p>The <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/tacdocs/The+Anti-Commandeering+Doctrine.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">anti-commandeering doctrine</a> is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. US</em> (1997) serves as the cornerstone. In it, Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p>Additionally, in the 1842 <em>Prigg v. Pennsylvania</em> case, the Court held that while the federal Fugitive Slave Act could not be physically impeded by states, they simply weren’t required to help the federal government capture runaway slaves and return them to bondage in the South.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB23 now moves to the Senate for further consideration. It has been referred to the Senate  Judicial Proceedings Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/maryland-house-passes-bill-to-ban-warrantless-access-to-state-driver-license-database-for-immigration-enforcement/">Maryland House Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Access to State Driver License Database for Immigration Enforcement</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Immigration State Bills HB23 ICE Maryland Mike Maharrey To the Governor: Montana Passes Bill to Create Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-montana-passes-bill-to-create-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:03ef5030-ed59-8064-12af-692b38770703 Sun, 04 Apr 2021 23:13:20 +0000 <p>The bill would create a mechanism to review presidential executive orders and end state cooperation with enforcement of certain orders determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. This process would set the stage to nullify some executive orders in practice and effect in Montana.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-montana-passes-bill-to-create-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/">To the Governor: Montana Passes Bill to Create Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>HELENA</strong>, Mont. (April 4, 2021) – On Thursday, the Montana House gave final approval to a bill that would create a mechanism to review presidential executive orders and end state cooperation with enforcement of certain orders determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. This process would set the stage to nullify some executive orders in practice and effect in Montana.<span id="more-36946"></span></p> <p>Sen. Tom McGillvray (R-Billings) introduced Senate Bill 277 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MT/bill/SB277/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB277</a>) on Feb. 25. Under the proposed law, the legislative council would have the authority to review any <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/12/whats-the-deal-with-executive-orders/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">executive order</a> issued by the President of the United States, if the order “has not been affirmed by a vote of the Congress of the United States and signed into law, as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States.”</p> <p>Upon a recommendation by the executive committee the state attorney general would be required to review the executive order.  Under the law, the state, a political subdivision of the state, or an organization receiving public funds from the state, would be prohibited from implementing any executive order that the attorney general determines to be unconstitutional during the review.</p> <p>The law would cover executive orders that relate to any of the following:</p> <ul> <li>A pandemic or other public health emergency;</li> <li>The regulation of natural resources;</li> <li>The regulation of the agricultural industry;</li> <li>The regulation of land use;</li> <li>The regulation of the financial sector through the imposition of environmental, social, or governance standards; or</li> <li>Any regulation affecting the constitutional rights of state residents, including but not limited to the right to keep and bear arms.</li> </ul> <p>On April 1, the House passed SB277 by a 59-38 vote. <a href="https://legiscan.com/MT/rollcall/SB277/id/1017769" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Senate previously passed SB277 by a 31-19 vote</a>. The bill now goes to Gov. Greg Gianforte for his consideration.</p> <p>The enactment of SB277 would provide a process to push back against overreaching executive authority. Immediately upon a determination of unconstitutionality by the AG, the state would be required to <strong>withdraw all resources and cease any cooperation with enforcement or implementation of the action</strong>. Because the feds lack the resources to enforce all of their laws and run all of their programs, this would likely be enough to effectively end the federal action in Montana in most situations, nullifying it in effect.</p> <p>This cumbersome process isn&#8217;t even necessary. Montana could simply ban enforcement of EOs without any determination of constitutionality.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>Based on James Madison’s <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/07/the-blueprint-james-madisons-advice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed this type of approach would be extremely effective. In a televised discussion on federal gun laws, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing or implementing certain federal acts rests on a well-established legal principle known as <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the anti-commandeering doctrine</a>. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program – whether constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>Gov. Gianforte will have 10 days from the date SB277 is transmitted to his office to sign or veto the bill. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-montana-passes-bill-to-create-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/">To the Governor: Montana Passes Bill to Create Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Federal Review State Bills anti-commandeerig Constitution Executive Orders Montana SB277 Mike Maharrey Consolidation vs Natural Liberty: Antifederalist Brutus No. 2 https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/consolidation-vs-natural-liberty-antifederalist-brutus-no-2/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d36b871e-6313-177d-95a4-e682f7bea8b7 Sat, 03 Apr 2021 16:51:47 +0000 <p>With a natural rights foundation - along with warnings about consolidation and people with power - in his 2nd of 16 essays during the debates over ratification of the Constitution, Antifederalist Brutus made a powerful case for decentralization and a Bill of Rights.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/consolidation-vs-natural-liberty-antifederalist-brutus-no-2/">Consolidation vs Natural Liberty: Antifederalist Brutus No. 2</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>With a natural rights foundation &#8211; along with warnings about consolidation and people with power &#8211; in his 2nd of 16 essays during the debates over ratification of the Constitution, Antifederalist Brutus made a powerful case for decentralization and a Bill of Rights.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: April 3, 2021 <span id="more-36951"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/o-xbZ2x6vEk" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/the-dangers-of-consolidation-brutus-no-1/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The Dangers of Consolidation: Antifederalist Brutus No. 1</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/history-ignored-james-wilsons-speech-on-the-constitution/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">History Ignored: James Wilson’s Speech on the Constitution</a></p> <p><a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/brutus-ii/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Brutus II (1 Nov 1787)</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-040321:5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/consolidation-vs-natural-liberty-antifederalist-brutus-60689c60a9670db982190e90" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-040321:5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1225120681523732480" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/a79ea65f-2559-4846-b17c-ba6648bf2574" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/4ElSYgHavj/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/vLcgIznOcr54/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/0da6aacd-199a-4cd3-9d1d-d917bf8111bd" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/974000262" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+iUKckolMR" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1378383793824788481" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter/show/60689e29f52dd863d02a4b30" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on MeWe</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/356d9c62-4d50-43b3-b882-becf01c11790" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/consolidation-vs-natural-liberty-antifederalist-brutus-no-2/">Consolidation vs Natural Liberty: Antifederalist Brutus No. 2</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Antifederalists Audio/Video Brutus Path to Liberty Bill of Rights Brutus No 2 Consolidation James Wilson Natural Rights Ratification Debates Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 16:54 With a natural rights foundation - along with warnings about consolidation and people with power - in his 2nd of 16 essays during the debates over ratification of the Constitution, Antifederalist Brutus made a powerful case for decentralization and a B... With a natural rights foundation - along with warnings about consolidation and people with power - in his 2nd of 16 essays during the debates over ratification of the Constitution, Antifederalist Brutus made a powerful case for decentralization and a Bill of Rights. The ‘Three-Fifths Compromise’ was not based on racism https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/02/the-three-fifths-compromise-was-not-based-on-racism/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:28ac2a6b-ed30-d138-aa3d-c1c27a0f2870 Fri, 02 Apr 2021 21:25:27 +0000 <p>So what was the three-fifths compromise? And what is the basis of the charge that it was racist?</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/02/the-three-fifths-compromise-was-not-based-on-racism/">The ‘Three-Fifths Compromise’ was not based on racism</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>This is the second in a series of essays answering defamatory charges leveled against the U.S. Constitution. The <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-left-is-wrong-the-constitution-never-discriminated-against-women_3633792.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">first in the series</a> addressed the allegation that the Constitution discriminated against women. In fact, as that essay showed, the framers took pains to ensure the document was gender-neutral.</p> <p>Another false charge is that the Constitution stems from, and continues to reflect, “systemic racism.” Critics point to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3—the “three-fifths compromise” explained below—even though that provision was amended out of the document more than 150 years ago.</p> <p>By way of illustration, a 2011 <a href="http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Time magazine</a> cover story asserted, “The framers … gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being.” Last year, Time doubled down with a <a href="https://time.com/5929478/christianity-white-supremacy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">column</a> stating that “the Constitution defined African-Americans as only three-fifths of a person.” Similarly, a Teen Vogue <a href="https://www.teenvogue.com/story/electoral-college-slavery-three-fifths-compromise-history" target="_blank" rel="noopener">item</a> misinformed its young readers with these words:</p> <blockquote><p>“White supremacy is systemic. … It thrives in politics with systems … like the electoral college, a process originally designed to protect the influence of white slave owners, which is still used today to determine presidential elections [because] … [e]nslaved black people … were declared three fifths of a person in order to strengthen the power of the white men who kept them in bondage.”</p></blockquote> <p>The Internet is littered with such drivel.</p> <p>The truth is that the Constitution’s text was racially neutral. The framers employed the same word—“person”—to refer to humans of all races. They rejected the racial qualifications for voting and office-holding that marred some state constitutions. For all purposes, they treated Indians who paid taxes and the significant number of free African-Americans exactly as they treated white people.</p> <p>So what was the three-fifths compromise? And what is the basis of the charge that it was racist?</p> <p>The three-fifths compromise addressed two issues: (1) the size of each state’s delegation in the House of Representatives and (2) each state’s contribution of federal <em>direct taxes</em>. Direct taxes were levies imposed on individual persons (“capitations”) and on a wide range of items, such as property, income, wealth, and professions. Direct taxes were distinguished from “indirect taxes” or “duties,” which were primarily levies on consumption and on transportation of goods across political boundaries.</p> <p>The Constitution provided that every state would have at least one representative in the House of Representatives. The three-fifths compromise added that both the additional representatives and direct taxes would be split among the states according to their population. <em>But for these purposes only</em>, each state’s population figure would be reduced (1) to exclude “Indians not taxed” and (2) to rate each slave as three-fifths of a free person.</p> <p>If you assume that counting persons is the proper basis for congressional representation, it’s easy to see how one could misread the reduction for slaves and the exclusion of non-tax-paying Indians as expressions of racism. However, many, probably most, of the framers did not think counting persons was the proper basis for representation. They believed representation should follow <em>ability to contribute federal tax revenue</em>. This view was inherited from English history, and was reflected in the Revolutionary War slogan, “No taxation without representation!”</p> <p>But when the framers tried to find a formula for calculating each state’s ability to contribute tax revenue, they ran into practical difficulties. After rejecting several proposed formulas as unworkable, they conceded that, at least over the long run, a state’s tax capacity would correlate with its population.</p> <p>As James Wilson of Pennsylvania said, “[I]n districts as large as the States, the number of people was the best measure of their comparative wealth. Whether therefore wealth or numbers were to form the ratio it would be the same.”</p> <p>There were two exceptions to the rule that tax capacity followed population. First, some states contained substantial numbers of Indians who were governed exclusively by their tribes. They did not pay state taxes and would not pay federal taxes. Second, the framers recognized that, on average, slaves produced far less than free people.</p> <p>This recognition had nothing to do with race. It was because slaves—of any race—could not sell their labor and talents in the free market. They were stuck in a centralized system of command and control, rather like Communism.</p> <p>Thus, the framers had to find a way to reduce a state’s representation according to the proportion of its population held in bondage.</p> <p>Fortunately, the Confederation Congress already had done the work for them. In 1783, Congress studied the relative productivity of slave and free workers. Among the factors it considered were</p> <ul> <li>The differing incentives of enslaved and free people;</li> <li>the value of their respective output, which was much less among slaves because of poor incentives;</li> <li>the respective costs of feeding and clothing free and slave labor;</li> <li>the ages at which young free people and slaves began working (found to be lower for free children than for slave children);</li> <li>the differing climates in free and slave states;</li> <li>the value of imports and exports in free and slave states; and</li> <li>that slaves were disproportionately confined to agriculture as opposed to manufacturing and other activities.</li> </ul> <p>Race wasn’t even on Congress’s list!</p> <p>One is reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s quotation of the Greek poet Homer: “Jove fix’d it certain, that whatever day, Makes man a slave, takes half his worth away.” As Jefferson knew, Homer was speaking of <em>white</em> slaves.</p> <p>In other words, the three-fifths compromise was not a statement about race at all. It was a statement about the economic inefficiency of slavery.</p> <p>Critics contend that the three-fifths compromise rewarded slave states. Actually, it punished them with reduced congressional representation. Here’s how it worked: Suppose a state had a population of 300,000. Suppose this population included 210,000 whites, 10,000 free blacks, 50,000 slaves, 20,000 citizen-Indians who paid taxes, and 10,000 tribal Indians who did not pay taxes. Only the tax-producing Indians would be counted, and the count of slaves would be reduced to reflect their relatively poor productivity. Thus, for purposes of allocating representatives and direct taxes, the state’s population would be credited as only 270,000 rather than 300,000. That is: 210,000 + 10,000 + [3/5 x 50,000] + 20,000 + 0 = 270,000.</p> <p>It’s true that the compromise also reduced a slave state’s direct taxes. But that was not a particularly good deal for the slave states, because except in wartime Congress was expected to resort only to <em>indirect</em> taxes—a prediction that proved true for many years.</p> <p>Nearly all the framers understood that slavery was evil. But as I shall explain in a later essay, they needed to come to terms with it if they hoped to hold the union together. Failure would have led to a fractured continent and European-style internecine warfare.</p> <p>But let’s not make more of the framers’ concession than the facts dictate: The three-fifths compromise was not an endorsement of, or subsidy for, slavery. It was based on a finding that slavery was economically stupid as well as unjust.</p> <p><strong>This essay <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-the-three-fifths-compromise-was-not-based-on-racism_3742894.html">first appeared</a> in the March 21, 2021 <em>Epoch Times</em>.</strong></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/02/the-three-fifths-compromise-was-not-based-on-racism/">The ‘Three-Fifths Compromise’ was not based on racism</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Constitution Founding Principles Three-Fifths Clause slavery Three Fifths Compromise Rob Natelson Rhode Island Bill Would Require a Conviction Before Asset Forfeiture, Opt State Out of Federal Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/rhode-island-bill-would-require-a-conviction-before-asset-forfeiture-opt-state-out-of-federal-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:00c4e28c-efcd-e4ed-8ba3-6e46e0755096 Fri, 02 Apr 2021 18:37:15 +0000 <p>Under the proposed law, prosecutors would not be able to move forward with asset forfeiture proceedings without first obtaining a criminal conviction in most cases. The legislation would also raise the standard of proof necessary to complete forfeiture from a preponderance of evidence to clear and convincing evidence.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/rhode-island-bill-would-require-a-conviction-before-asset-forfeiture-opt-state-out-of-federal-program/">Rhode Island Bill Would Require a Conviction Before Asset Forfeiture, Opt State Out of Federal Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>PROVIDENCE</strong>, R.I. (April 2, 2021) – A bill introduced in the Rhode Island Senate would reform the state’s asset forfeiture laws to require a criminal conviction in most cases, and also opt the state out of a federal asset forfeiture program known as &#8220;equitable sharing.&#8221;<span id="more-36948"></span></p> <p>A coalition of five Democrats introduced Senate Bill 732 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/RI/bill/S0732/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">S732</a>) on March 26. Under the proposed law, prosecutors would not be able to move forward with asset forfeiture proceedings without first obtaining a criminal conviction in most cases. The legislation would also raise the standard of proof necessary to complete forfeiture from a preponderance of evidence to clear and convincing evidence.</p> <p>S732 also addresses the policing for profit incentives in the current forfeiture process. Under the proposed law, forfeiture proceeds would be deposited to the state general fund. As it stands, law enforcement agencies can keep up to 90 percent of forfeiture proceeds.</p> <p>Passage of the bill would effectively opt Rhode Island out of a federal program that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws. This is particularly important in light of a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/30/states-can-thwart-new-doj-asset-forfeiture-policy/">policy directive issued in July 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> for the Department of Justice (DOJ) that remains in effect today.</p> <p>According to <a href="https://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-rhode-island/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the Institute for Justice</a>, the current Rhode Island asset forfeiture process is “awful.”</p> <p><strong>NECESSARY</strong></p> <p>While some people believe the Supreme Court “ended asset forfeiture, its opinion in <i>Timbs v. Indiana</i> <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/asset-forfeiture-was-not-ended-by-the-supreme-court-good-morning-liberty-02-25-19/">ended nothing</a>. Without further action, civil asset forfeiture remains. Additionally, as law professor <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/20/supreme-court-rules-that-excessive-fines">Ilya Somin noted</a>, the Court left an important issue unresolved. What exactly counts as “excessive” in the civil forfeiture context?</p> <blockquote><p>“That is likely to be a hotly contested issue in the lower federal courts over the next few years. The ultimate effect of today’s decision depends in large part on how that question is resolved. If courts rule that only a few unusually extreme cases qualify as excessive, the impact of Timbs might be relatively marginal.”</p></blockquote> <p>Going forward, opponents of civil asset forfeiture could wait and see how lower federal courts will address this “over the next few years,” or they can do what a number of states have already taken steps to do, end the practice on a state level, and opt out of the federal equitable sharing program as well.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH6vYLXTfGI">Equitable Sharing</a>” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.</p> <p>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>S732 directly addresses the federal equitable sharing program.</p> <blockquote><p>(a) A law enforcement agency shall not directly or indirectly transfer seized property to a federal law enforcement authority or other federal agency unless:<br /> (1) The value of the seized property exceeds fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), excluding the potential value of the sale of contraband; and<br /> (2) The law enforcement agency determines that the criminal conduct that gave rise to the seizure is interstate in nature and sufficiently complex to justify the transfer of the property; or<br /> (3) The seized property may only be forfeited under federal law.<br /> (b) The law enforcement agency shall not transfer property to the federal government if the transfer would circumvent the protections of the forfeiture act that would otherwise be available to a putative interest holder in the property.</p></blockquote> <p>The vast majority of forfeiture cases fall below the $50,000 threshold.</p> <p>As the Tenth Amendment Center <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/09/feds-meddling-in-attempt-to-undermine-state-asset-forfeiture-reform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">previously reported</a> the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.</p> <p>Why?</p> <p>We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>S732 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/rhode-island-bill-would-require-a-conviction-before-asset-forfeiture-opt-state-out-of-federal-program/">Rhode Island Bill Would Require a Conviction Before Asset Forfeiture, Opt State Out of Federal Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing Policing for Profit Rhode Island S732 Mike Maharrey Montana Republicans Kill Bill That Would Have Limited Facial Recognition Surveillance https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/montana-republicans-kill-bill-that-would-have-limited-facial-recognition-surveillance/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d0a6fafc-c1e5-7db0-0e55-77a7d3a8f2f8 Fri, 02 Apr 2021 15:16:56 +0000 <p>On March 2, the bill failed to pass a vote on the house floor by a count of 48 - 50. Every Democrat voted in favor of the measure, but 50 Republicans voted against it.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/montana-republicans-kill-bill-that-would-have-limited-facial-recognition-surveillance/">Montana Republicans Kill Bill That Would Have Limited Facial Recognition Surveillance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>HELENA</strong>, Mont. (April 2, 2021) – Last month, the Montana House killed a bill that would have placed limits on law enforcement&#8217;s use of facial recognition. The proposed law would not only have helped protect privacy in Montana; it could also have hindered one aspect of the federal surveillance state.<span id="more-36796"></span></p> <p>Rep. Katie Sullivan (D-Missoula) introduced House Bill 577 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MT/bill/HB577/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB577</a>) on Feb. 23. Under the proposed law, a local government agency could have only used facial recognition technology for the investigation of a missing or endangered person, violent felonies, or for locating a person in the vicinity of a recent violent felony who may be connected to that crime. It would have banned the use of facial recognition for ongoing surveillance, conducting real-time or near real-time identification, or starting persistent tracking without a warrant.</p> <p>HB577 would have prohibited using facial recognition in conjunction with a sketch or manually produced image, and it would have barred the use of facial recognition “based solely on [a person’s] religious, political, or social views or activities, participation in a particular noncriminal organization or lawful event, or actual or perceived race, ethnicity, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristics protected by law.”</p> <p>HB577 included extensive reporting requirements on the use of facial recognition and would have created an important environment of transparency.</p> <p>On March 2, the bill failed to pass a vote on the house floor by a count of 48 &#8211; 50. <a href="https://legiscan.com/MT/rollcall/HB577/id/1019503" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Every Democrat voted in favor of the measure, but 50 Republicans voted against it.</a></p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>A <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recent report revealed</a> that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/31/local-state-and-federal-law-enforcement-partnering-to-create-massive-facial-recognition-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a massive, nationwide facial recognition system</a> for years.</p> <p>The FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.</p> <p>In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at <a href="https://www.perpetuallineup.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">perpetuallineup.org</a>. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.</p> <blockquote><p>“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/study-lack-of-face-recognition-oversight-threatens-privacy-of-millions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clare Garvie said</a>. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”</p></blockquote> <p>There are <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/whats-the-big-problem-with-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">many technical and legal problems</a> with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8wa8/amazons-facial-recognition-misidentified-1-in-5-california-lawmakers-as-criminals" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature</a> as people in a database of arrest photos.</p> <p>With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.</p> <p>In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).</p> <p>Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a <a href="https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/investigative-report-criticizes-counterterrorism-reporting-waste-at-state-and-local-intelligence-fusion-centers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bipartisan congressional report</a> to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”</p> <p>Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/information-sharing-environment-what-we-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">its website</a>, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.</p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/30/smoking-gun-feds-partner-with-local-police-to-facilitate-warrantless-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras</a> equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.</p> <p>In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of state laws and local ordinances banning or limiting facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/montana-republicans-kill-bill-that-would-have-limited-facial-recognition-surveillance/">Montana Republicans Kill Bill That Would Have Limited Facial Recognition Surveillance</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Facial Recognition State Bills facial recognition HB577 Montana Police Police-State Privacy Republicans Amanda Bowers