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/ Nullification News: 2A, Raw Milk, Forfeiture, Facial Recognition and more https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/nullification-news-2a-raw-milk-forfeiture-facial-recognition-and-more/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:0693a63c-6f9e-4fc8-6083-0f7c4ad47d2b Fri, 17 Jan 2020 18:00:22 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/nullification-news-2a-raw-milk-forfeiture-facial-recognition-and-more/" title="Nullification News: 2A, Raw Milk, Forfeiture, Facial Recognition and more" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011720.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011720.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011720-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011720-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011720-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />It&#8217;s nullification season! Michael Boldin reports on the latest efforts to reject, resist, undermine and nullify unconstitutional acts .Hear about legislation on the right to keep and bear arms, raw milk, asset forfeiture and facial recognition surveillance. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: January 17, 2020 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes &#124; Google Play &#124; Stitcher [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/nullification-news-2a-raw-milk-forfeiture-facial-recognition-and-more/" title="Nullification News: 2A, Raw Milk, Forfeiture, Facial Recognition and more" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011720.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011720.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011720-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011720-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011720-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>It&#8217;s nullification season! Michael Boldin reports on the latest efforts to reject, resist, undermine and nullify unconstitutional acts .Hear about legislation on the right to keep and bear arms, raw milk, asset forfeiture and facial recognition surveillance.</p> <p>Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: January 17, 2020<span id="more-34076"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/w87jEmyq5jo" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>PODCAST VERSION</strong></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&amp;isi=691797987&amp;ius=googleplaymusic&amp;apn=com.google.android.music&amp;link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ic7vaa26zzqtt2zmxovxwkxktem?t%3DPath_to_Liberty%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Play</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><strong>2nd Amendment</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB1637&#038;year=2020&#038;code=R" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Missouri HB1637</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-takes-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">WV HB4168</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/oklahoma-bill-takes-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">OK HB2781</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/11/south-carolina-bill-would-set-the-foundation-to-block-federal-gun-control/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">SC H4704</a></p> <p><strong>Raw Milk</strong><br /> <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/missouri-committee-hold-hearing-on-a-bill-to-legalize-raw-milk-sales-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">MO HB1335</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-would-legalize-limited-sales-of-raw-milk-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">WV HB2643</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/new-york-bill-would-expand-raw-milk-sales-set-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">NY A5867</a>, <a href="https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/A585/2020" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">NJ A585</a>, <a href="https://legiscan.com/HI/bill/HB536/2020" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Hawaii HB536</a></p> <p><strong>Asset Forfeiture</strong><br /> <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/signed-as-law-new-jersey-bill-requires-strict-asset-forfeiture-reporting/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">New Jersey</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/new-hampshire-bill-would-opt-out-state-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">NH HB1192</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/missouri-bill-would-opt-state-out-of-federal-asset-forfeiture-program/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">MO HB1776</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/hawaii-bills-would-reform-asset-forfeiture-laws-but-federal-loophole-remains/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">HI SB1467</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-would-reform-asset-forfeiture-law-to-require-criminal-conviction-federal-loophole-would-remain/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">WV HB2563</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/arizona-bill-would-require-conviction-before-asset-forfeiture/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">AZ HB2149 &#038; HB2032</a></p> <p><strong>Defend the Guard</strong><br /> <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/michigan-bill-would-ban-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Michigan HB5320</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-block-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">WV HB2732</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-block-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">OK SB1101</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/11/south-carolina-bill-would-block-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">SC H4728</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/seven-and-counting-cambridge-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Seven and Counting: Cambridge Massachusetts Passes Facial Recognition Ban</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/6a06c19e-f5ac-4e7d-b53e-95a8676f7093" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/xRUB7YOnuwzN/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/446a369d-5f9f-4001-913f-62f8e21a73fe" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bittubers</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/537437706" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1nAKEZprpmYGL" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+k_FMzjEWg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Asset Forfeiture Audio/Video Defend the Guard Facial Recognition Local Nullification Path to Liberty Raw Milk Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Nullification News Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 14:17 It’s nullification season! Michael Boldin reports on the latest efforts to reject, resist, undermine and nullify unconstitutional acts .Hear about legislation on the right to keep and bear arms, raw milk, asset forfeiture and facial recognition surveil... It’s nullification season! Michael Boldin reports on the latest efforts to reject, resist, undermine and nullify unconstitutional acts .Hear about legislation on the right to keep and bear arms, raw milk, asset forfeiture and facial recognition surveillance. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: January 17, 2020 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher […] To the Governor: New Jersey Bill Reforms Asset Forfeiture, But Federal Loophole Remains https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/to-the-governor-new-jersey-bill-reforms-asset-forfeiture-but-federal-loophole-remains/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:c982bd7b-d6cb-98c8-55c2-4e50d0227a8f Fri, 17 Jan 2020 16:22:09 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/to-the-governor-new-jersey-bill-reforms-asset-forfeiture-but-federal-loophole-remains/" title="To the Governor: New Jersey Bill Reforms Asset Forfeiture, But Federal Loophole Remains" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-general-101118-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-general-101118-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-general-101118-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-general-101118-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-general-101118-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />TRENTON, N.J. (Jan 17, 2019) – On Monday, the New Jersey Assembly gave final approval to a bill that would reform the state’s asset forfeiture laws to require a conviction in many cases. But the proposed law leaves a loophole in place allowing police to circumvent stricter state laws by passing cases off to the [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/to-the-governor-new-jersey-bill-reforms-asset-forfeiture-but-federal-loophole-remains/" title="To the Governor: New Jersey Bill Reforms Asset Forfeiture, But Federal Loophole Remains" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-general-101118-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-general-101118-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-general-101118-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-general-101118-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-general-101118-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>TRENTON</strong>, N.J. (Jan 17, 2019) – On Monday, the New Jersey Assembly gave final approval to a bill that would reform the state’s asset forfeiture laws to require a conviction in many cases. But the proposed law leaves a loophole in place allowing police to circumvent stricter state laws by passing cases off to the feds.<span id="more-34065"></span></p> <p>A coalition of six Democrats introduced Assembly Bill 4970 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/A4970/2018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A4970</a>) on Jan. 28. Under the proposed law, the state could not proceed with asset forfeiture in without a criminal conviction in most cases involving $1,000 or less in cash, or non-cash property valued at $10,000 or less. Studies indicate a many asset forfeiture cases nationwide fall under these thresholds. For instance, according to the <a href="https://www.mackinac.org/michigan-legislature-passes-bills-requiring-a-criminal-conviction-for-forfeiture" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mackinac Center for Public Policy</a>, “The typical forfeiture in Michigan is just a few hundred dollars or a car valued at less than $2,000.”</p> <p>In cases that do not require a criminal conviction, A4970 would raise the evidentiary standard to complete asset forfeiture from “a preponderance of evidence” to “clear and convincing evidence,” a much more difficult threshold to meet.</p> <p>On May 23, the Assembly <a href="https://legiscan.com/NJ/rollcall/A4970/id/871797" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">passed A4970 by a 70-2 vote</a>. The Senate approved the measure on Monday <a href="https://legiscan.com/NJ/rollcall/A4970/id/902264" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">by a 37-2 vote</a>, and the Assembly concurred to some technical amendments, sending the legislation to Gov. Phil Murphy&#8217;s desk for his consideration.</p> <p>A <a href="https://v6mx3476r2b25580w4eit4uv-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Civil-Asset-Forfeiture-Reform-Coalition-Letter-005.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">letter released by a coalition</a> pushing for forfeiture reforms in New Jersey paints a bleak picture of current forfeiture law in the Garden State.</p> <blockquote><p>“Under civil forfeiture, law enforcement agencies can seize and then take title to cash, cars, and other valuables without charging anyone with—let alone convicting them of—a crime. Compounding these problems, New Jersey law does not require any forfeiture reporting. Instead, the Office of the Attorney General governs the reporting process through rulemaking and requires only the most basic details to be reported. And even those basic details are difficult to track down—the AG’s office does not compile aggregate reports, so interested parties must file lengthy and expensive Open Public Records Act requests to obtain the information. For example, the Institute for Justice recently requested from the AG’s office two years of counties’ and municipalities’ forfeiture reports, which cost IJ over $5,000 and took over 18 months to obtain.”</p></blockquote> <p>Murphy recently signed <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/to-the-governor-new-jersey-passes-bill-to-require-asset-forfeiture-reporting/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a second bill</a> that would take the first step by imposing strict reporting requirements for all asset forfeitures in the state.</p> <p>While A4970 would modestly reform New Jersey’s asset forfeiture process, it fails to close a loophole and withdraw the state from a federal program that allows police to circumvent the state forfeiture process altogether. This is particularly important in light of a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/30/states-can-thwart-new-doj-asset-forfeiture-policy/">policy directive issued in July 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> for the Department of Justice (DOJ).</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/federal-asset-forfeiture-program-helps-local-police-steal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Equitable Sharing</a>” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.</p> <p>Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state closed the loophole</a> in 2016.</p> <p>New Jersey could close this loophole in most situations by effectively withdrawing from the federal program. We recommend the following language.</p> <blockquote><p>A local, county or state law enforcement agency shall not refer, transfer or otherwise relinquish possession of property seized under state law to a federal agency by way of adoption of the seized property or other means by the federal agency for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Public Law 91 513-Oct. 27, 1970.under the federal Controlled Substances Act or other federal law.</p> <p>In a case in which the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized has a value of $50,000 or less, excluding the value of contraband, a local, county or state law enforcement agency or participant in a joint task force or other multijurisdictional collaboration with the federal government (agency) shall transfer responsibility for the seized property to the state prosecuting authority for forfeiture under state law.</p> <p>If the federal government prohibits the transfer of seized property and currency to the state prosecuting authority as required by paragraph (1) and instead requires the property be transferred to the federal government for forfeiture under federal law, the agency is prohibited from accepting payment of any kind or distribution of forfeiture proceeds from the federal government.</p></blockquote> <p>Failure to withdraw from the equitable sharing program could render the proposed forfeiture reforms virtually meaningless.</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>Gov. Murphy will have 45 days from the date it is transmitted to his office to sign or veto A4970 or it will become law without his signature.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Asset Forfeiture State Bills A4970 Equitable Sharing New Jersey Policing for Profit Mike Maharrey David Rivkin and Lee Casey on the House War Powers Resolution https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/david-rivkin-and-lee-casey-on-the-house-war-powers-resolution/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:cca36769-7004-ae88-bc2e-818b05406088 Fri, 17 Jan 2020 15:53:24 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/david-rivkin-and-lee-casey-on-the-house-war-powers-resolution/" title="David Rivkin and Lee Casey on the House War Powers Resolution" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-768x401.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-1024x535.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-1080x564.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />I'm inclined to think Congress has this power, as necessary and proper to its declare war power -- to preserve its power to decide when and whether a war should start or continue. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/david-rivkin-and-lee-casey-on-the-house-war-powers-resolution/" title="David Rivkin and Lee Casey on the House War Powers Resolution" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-768x401.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-1024x535.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-1080x564.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>In the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey: <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/congress-declares-war-but-only-the-president-can-make-it-11579133486?mod=opinion_lead_pos5">Congress Declares War, but Only the President Can Make It</a>.  From the introduction:</p> <blockquote><p>House Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, responded to the killing of Iran’s Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani by questioning the president’s authority to order that strike. But the resolution they passed last week makes a mockery of Congress’s own powers. It purportedly “directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military” unless Congress authorizes the use of force or an Iranian attack on the U.S. is “imminent.” But it’s styled as a nonbinding resolution. That means it doesn’t need Senate approval, but it also makes no pretense of having the force of law.</p></blockquote> <div class="paywall"> <blockquote><p>Which is just as well. Congress cannot limit the president’s constitutional authority to wage war in the way it pretends to here.</p></blockquote> <p>And from later on:</p> <blockquote><p>It’s true that the Constitution assigns Congress the power “to declare war.” Yet even in the 18th century, a declaration of war wasn’t required to create a state of armed conflict, governed by the laws of war. Today, such a declaration has to do with how citizens and property from belligerent and neutral states are treated, rather than the actual use of force. The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1942. Since World War II, lawmakers have approved U.S. military actions by other means, from the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which allowed President Lyndon B. Johnson to expand U.S. involvement in Vietnam, to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.</p> <p>The power to declare war is different from the power to <em>make</em> war, which belongs to the president in his role as “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” There are few constraints on that power when the president is defending Americans, civilian or military, against armed attack.</p> <p>&#8230;</p> <p>Even if it passes legislation, Congress cannot dictate when and how the president exercises his power over the military forces it has provided—especially in selecting targets.</p></blockquote> <p>I partly agree but mostly don&#8217;t.  I agree that in an authorized war Congress cannot give tactical directions to the President.  (discussed here).  And I agree that absent a congressional prohibition, the President can respond to attacks (and highly imminent attacks)  (discussed <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=449021">here</a> and <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1236042">here</a>).  But (contrary to the linked post), I see the core of the declare war clause to be a prohibition on Presidents initiating war.  (discussed <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2830113">here</a> and at greater length in <em><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Constitutions-Text-Foreign-Affairs/dp/0674024907/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=ramsey+The+Constitution%27s+Text+in+Foreign+Affairs&amp;qid=1579243145&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1">The Constitution&#8217;s Text in Foreign Affairs</a></em>).</p> <p>The difficult question is whether Congress can prohibit a military response when the President would otherwise have independent authority to respond.  I&#8217;m inclined to think Congress has this power, as necessary and proper to its declare war power &#8212; to preserve its power to decide when and whether a war should start or continue.  In any event, it seems clear that Congress could prohibit expenditures on military responses, including against specific countries.</p> </div> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> War Powers Declare War Make War Michael D. Ramsey A Limited-Government Republic versus a National-Security State https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/16/a-limited-government-republic-versus-a-national-security-state/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:1c37f2d5-3860-77d1-8ede-57cb7faa828f Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:06:16 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/16/a-limited-government-republic-versus-a-national-security-state/" title="A Limited-Government Republic versus a National-Security State" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/for-your-safety-control-you-sept-2019-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/for-your-safety-control-you-sept-2019-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/for-your-safety-control-you-sept-2019-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/for-your-safety-control-you-sept-2019-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/for-your-safety-control-you-sept-2019-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />The worst mistake that the American people have made in the entire history of the United States was to permit the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state. That conversion has played a major role in the destruction of our liberty, privacy, and economic well-being. What is a national-security state? It is a [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/16/a-limited-government-republic-versus-a-national-security-state/" title="A Limited-Government Republic versus a National-Security State" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/for-your-safety-control-you-sept-2019-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/for-your-safety-control-you-sept-2019-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/for-your-safety-control-you-sept-2019-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/for-your-safety-control-you-sept-2019-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/for-your-safety-control-you-sept-2019-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>The worst mistake that the American people have made in the entire history of the United States was to permit the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state. That conversion has played a major role in the destruction of our liberty, privacy, and economic well-being.<span id="more-29016"></span></p> <p>What is a national-security state? It is a totalitarian-like governmental structure that consists of an enormous military-intelligence establishment with extraordinary powers, such as indefinite detention, torture, secret surveillance, and even assassination of both citizens and foreigners.</p> <p>To put the matter into a larger context, North Korea is a national-security state. So are Egypt, China, Cuba, and Russia. And the United States. All of the regimes in those countries wield totalitarian-like powers.</p> <p>It wasn’t always that way in the United States. Our nation was founded as a limited-government republic and remained that way for nearly 150 years. No Pentagon, no CIA, and no NSA. There was an army but it was relatively small — big enough to win battles against Indian tribes or a neighboring weak and impoverished country such as Mexico, but nowhere big enough to engage in wars around the world.</p> <p>That was how our American ancestors wanted it. The last thing they wanted was a federal government that possessed a large permanent military-intelligence establishment. That’s because they believed that that type of governmental system would inevitably destroy their liberty and their well-being.</p> <p>When the delegates met at the Constitutional Convention, their assigned task was simply to modify the Articles of Confederation, which formed a third kind of governmental structure, one under which the states had been operating for more than a decade. Under the Articles, the federal government’s powers were so weak that — get this — it didn’t even have the power to tax. Imagine: For more than ten years, Americans lived under a government that was prohibited from levying any taxes whatsoever.</p> <p>But there were problems with the Articles, and the purpose of Constitutional Convention was to come up with solutions to those problems through modifications to the Articles of Confederation. Instead, the delegates to the convention, who met in secret, came up with an entirely different proposal, one that called for a different type of governmental system — a limited-government republic, one where the federal government would have more powers, including the power to tax.</p> <p>Americans were extremely leery. They believed that the greatest threat to the freedom and well-being of a citizenry lay not with some foreign regime but rather with their own government. They also understood that the way that governments throughout history had destroyed the freedom of their citizens was, in large part, through the power of their military forces. If people dissented or rebelled against what the government was doing, officials could employ military force to quell the rebellion. But if they didn’t possess a powerful military, they lacked the means to do that, which would inhibit them from doing bad things to the citizenry.</p> <p>Suppose the proponents of the Constitution had said to the American people,</p> <blockquote><p>The Constitution will bring into existence a federal government that will include a vast, permanent, and ever-growing military-intelligence establishment, with military and intelligence bases all over the United States and the world. Together with the president, the military will have the power to embroil the nation in war anywhere in the world without congressional consent. It will possess the power to spy on and keep files on the American people, in order to keep them safe. It will have the power to take Americans into custody and place them in military dungeons or secret intelligence prison camps, where they can be tortured. It will also have the power to assassinate Americans.</p></blockquote> <p>If the American people had heard that from the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, they would have died laughing. They would have thought it was a joke. When they later learned that the delegates were totally serious, the American people would have summarily rejected the deal and instead would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation.</p> <p>In fact, the reason Americans were so leery of the proposal offered by the proponents of the Constitution was that they were concerned that they might be bringing into existence a government that wielded those types of omnipotent powers. That’s why they were so opposed to what they called a “standing army,” which was their term for a large, permanent military-intelligence establishment.</p> <p>The proponents of the Constitution assured Americans that that could never happen. The reason was that the charter that was bringing the federal government into existence also, at the same time, delineated its powers. If a power wasn’t listed in the Constitution, then it simply didn’t exist, which meant it couldn’t be exercised against the citizenry.</p> <p>On the basis of that assurance but still leery, the American people approved the deal, but only on the condition that the Constitution would be amended immediately after being approved. The amendments would provide express restrictions on the powers of federal officials to destroy the liberty and well-being of the people.</p> <p>Some proponents of the Constitution responded that such restrictions were unnecessary because if a power to destroy people’s liberty and well-being wasn’t listed in the Constitution, it couldn’t be exercised. A bill of rights, such proponents said, would be superfluous.</p> <p>But Americans were not willing to settle for that principle. Knowing that people who are attracted to political power inevitably come up with good excuses for destroying people’s liberty, Americans wanted to make it doubly clear that federal officials lacked the power to do tyrannical things to them. That’s why they expressly prohibited them from destroying people’s freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right of assembly, the right to keep and bear arms, and others.</p> <p>That wasn’t all, however. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments expressly restricted the power of federal officials to kill both Americans and foreigners. The government couldn’t kill anyone or deprive anyone of liberty or property without “due process of law,” a term that stretched back to Magna Carta in 1215, when the barons of England forced their king to acknowledge that his powers over them were limited.</p> <p>Due process required formal notice of charges and a trial before the government could kill someone or take away his liberty or his property. If a person was targeted, the Bill of Rights guaranteed that he could elect to be tried by a jury of ordinary citizens rather than by a judge or a tribunal. Recognizing the inherent power of government, the amendments also guaranteed that a person being targeted could have an attorney represent him. The government was also prohibited from conducting searches without judicially issued warrants based on probable cause that a crime had been committed. They also prohibited federal officials from inflicting what they called “cruel and unusual” punishments on people.</p> <p><b>Monsters</b></p> <p>Our American ancestors had brought into existence a limited-government republic, a type of political system in which the government was delegated very few powers and then expressly forbidden by the Bill of Rights to exercise totalitarian-like powers. While there were backroom political deals that would be made, the overall operations of the government were open and transparent. That was the governmental system under which Americans lived for nearly 150 years.</p> <p>At the same time, America adopted a noninterventionist foreign policy, one in which the federal government would not embroil the nation in foreign conflicts, wars, disputes, revolutions, or coups. This foreign policy was summed up in a speech that U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams delivered to Congress on the Fourth of July, 1821. Entitled “In Search of Monsters to Destroy,” the speech pointed out that America’s founding foreign policy was not to send military forces abroad to save foreigners from the monstrous conditions in their countries, including dictatorships, famines, wars, and revolutions. If America were ever to abandon that noninterventionist foreign policy, Adams warned, U.S. officials would start behaving like dictators.</p> <p>Does that mean that Americans were indifferent to the plights of foreigners? On the contrary. It just meant that they wouldn’t help them by bringing death and destruction through military force to their lands. Instead, America would open its borders to anyone who managed to escape his conditions, with no possibility that he would be rejected and forcibly returned to his homeland.</p> <p>The shift toward empire and intervention began in 1898 in the Spanish-American War. Certain Spanish colonies were waging a war of independence against Spain. The U.S. government intervened in their behalf. As soon as Spain was defeated, however, the U.S. government assumed control over some of its former colonies. That’s how the United States acquired Puerto Rico, control over Cuba, the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Guam, and the Philippines. In the Philippines, U.S. forces killed hundreds of thousands of Filipinos who continued to fight for their independence, this time from the United States. The notion was that in order for the United States to become a great nation, it needed to become an empire and acquire colonies, just like the Spanish and British empires.</p> <p>After that came U.S. intervention into World War I. Woodrow Wilson maintained that U.S. intervention would bring about an end to all war and make the world “safe for democracy” by totally and completely defeating Germany. Despite the loss of tens of thousands of American men, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Joseph Stalin rose to power in Germany, Italy, and Russia.</p> <p>Once World War II broke out, Americans were overwhelmingly opposed to intervening again. But Franklin Roosevelt succeeded in provoking Japan into “firing the first shot” with its attack on Pearl Harbor, which brought about U.S. entry into the deadliest and most destructive war the world has ever seen.</p> <p><b>The CIA</b></p> <p>When the war was finally over in 1945, Americans were ecstatic that the Nazi regime and the Japanese Empire had been defeated and that their lives could return to normal. Not so fast, U.S. officials told Americans. They said that even though the Axis Powers had been defeated, the United States now faced another enemy, one that was arguably more dangerous than the Axis. That enemy was communism or, to be more exact, an international communist conspiracy to take over the world that was based in Moscow, Russia. The communists were coming to get us, U.S. officials said, and take over the U.S. government and the nation.</p> <p>Therefore, they maintained, it would be necessary to intervene in hot wars to stop the Reds from advancing toward America and to wage a “cold war” against the Soviet Union. That’s how tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers got sacrificed in civil wars in Korea and Vietnam. U.S. officials said that if the United States failed to intervene in those conflicts, the Reds would be at our doorstep before too long.</p> <p>That cold war is what brought about the conversion of the federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, which was what the Soviet Union was. U.S. officials maintained that a limited-government republic-type of governmental system would be no match for a national-security-state type of governmental system, given that the latter placed no constraints on agents to do whatever they needed to do to win. In order to prevent a communist takeover of the United States, it would be necessary to convert the federal government to the same type of governmental system the Soviet Union had. The implication, of course, was that as soon as the United States won the Cold War, Americans could have their limited-government republic back.</p> <p>Soon after the CIA was established in 1947, ostensibly as an “intelligence-gathering” agency to provide secret information to the president, it began specializing in the art of assassination, including the preparation of a top-secret “assassination manual” that explained various methods of assassination and, equally important, how to keep people from discovering that it was a state-sponsored assassination. The Fifth Amendment was eviscerated. In the name of protecting national security, the federal government, through the CIA, now wielded the power, to secretly deprive anyone of life it wanted.</p> <p>In 1953, the CIA secretly initiated a coup in Iran that ousted the democratically elected prime minister of the country, Mohammad Mossadegh, from power and replaced him with the shah of Iran, one of the world’s most brutal dictators. The notion was that Mossadegh was leaning communist. In 1979, fed up with the U.S.-supported tyranny under which they had suffered for 25 years, the Iranian people revolted and ousted the shah from power. Unfortunately, they were unsuccessful in restoring the democratic system that the CIA had destroyed, leaving them suffering under a different type of dictatorship. The CIA’s coup is the root of the bad relations between Iran and the United States today.</p> <p>One year later, 1954, the CIA secretly initiated a coup in Guatemala, which succeeded in ousting the democratically elected president of that country, Jacobo Arbenz, who was a socialist, and replacing him with a pro-U.S. military dictator. Arbenz was lucky that he was able to escape the country because the CIA had prepared an assassination list that undoubtedly had him at the top. That coup incited a 30-year-long civil war that killed more than a million Guatemalans.</p> <p>After the 1959 Cuban revolution brought a communist regime into power, the Pentagon and the CIA, along with other U.S. officials, went apoplectic. America couldn’t survive with a “communist dagger” pointed at its throat from only 90 miles away, they said. Thus, the CIA launched an unsuccessful invasion of the island, several unsuccessful assassination attempts against Cuban president Fidel Castro, and a brutal economic embargo that, in combination with Castro’s socialist system, has squeezed the economic lifeblood out the Cuban people.<br /> The national-security establishment’s incessant quest to effect regime change in Cuba also brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war.</p> <p>The fact is that there was never any possibility that the communists were coming to get us and take over the federal government and the country. The Cold War was one great big racket, one that enriched countless people, including an army of “defense” contractors and subcontractors who got rich feeding at the public trough. Most important, the Cold War and the national-security-state form of governmental structure that came with it succeeded in destroying the rights and liberties of the Americans people.</p> <p><b>The Middle East</b></p> <p>Suddenly and unexpectedly, the Cold War ended in 1989, when the Soviet Union, which had gone bankrupt, called it quits. The Berlin Wall came down and Russian troops exited Eastern Europe.</p> <p>Needless to say, the national-security establishment was concerned about its future. No more Cold War obviously meant that Americans were entitled to have their limited-government republic back. But the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were not eager to be dismantled. Soon after the end of the Cold War, they intervened in the Persian Gulf War against their former partner and ally, Saddam Hussein, which began a 30-year campaign of U.S. death, destruction, and humiliation against people in the Middle East.</p> <p>It was no surprise that that campaign engendered deep anger and rage among the people who were targeted for death and destruction. That’s when the anti-American terrorist blowback began. It started with the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, which was followed by the attacks on the USS <i>Cole,</i> the attacks on the U.S. embassies in East Africa, and the 9/11 attacks.</p> <p>The 9/11 attacks gave the federal government what our American ancestors had feared when the Constitution was being proposed to them — a government consisting of a massive, ever-growing military-intelligence establishment with omnipotent, totalitarian powers to keep the nation “safe” from the terrorist blowback that U.S. officials had produced with their interventionism.</p> <p>That’s how Americans have ended up with a government that wields the power to take them into custody and throw them indefinitely into a military dungeon and torture them to any extent whatsoever. It is how Americans have ended up with a government that wields the power to conduct secret surveillance on them, just like government officials do in China, North Korea, and Cuba. It is how Americans have ended up with a government that wields the power to assassinate them.</p> <p>Anyone who lives under a national-security-state governmental system cannot possibly be considered free. Our ancestors understood that principle. Their successors living today have yet to figure that out. Or if they have figured it out, they have chosen to trade liberty for the pretense of safety and security.</p> <p>For Americans who want freedom, a necessary prerequisite is the restoration of a limited-government republic and a noninterventionist foreign policy, which necessarily entails the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and the NSA.</p> <p><em>This article was originally published in the November 2019 edition of</em> <a href="https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/journal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Future of Freedom</a>.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Current Events Founding Principles CIA Intervention Militarism national-security Jacob Hornberger Missouri Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Legalize Raw Milk Sales; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/missouri-committee-hold-hearing-on-a-bill-to-legalize-raw-milk-sales-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:6fcea0f2-3444-50f4-5b88-452e464e4781 Thu, 16 Jan 2020 16:46:55 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/missouri-committee-hold-hearing-on-a-bill-to-legalize-raw-milk-sales-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/" title="Missouri Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Legalize Raw Milk Sales; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Jan. 16, 2019) &#8211; Yesterday, a Missouri House committee held a public hearing on a bill that would legalize retail sales of raw milk in the state and take a step toward nullifying a federal prohibition scheme in effect. Rep. Ann Kelley (R-Lamar) filed House Bill 1335 (HB1335) in December. The legislation [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/missouri-committee-hold-hearing-on-a-bill-to-legalize-raw-milk-sales-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/" title="Missouri Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Legalize Raw Milk Sales; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-jan-2020-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY</strong>, Mo. (Jan. 16, 2019) &#8211; Yesterday, a Missouri House committee held a public hearing on a bill that would legalize retail sales of raw milk in the state and take a step toward nullifying a federal prohibition scheme in effect.<span id="more-34070"></span></p> <p>Rep. Ann Kelley (R-Lamar) filed House Bill 1335 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/HB1335/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB1335</a>) in December. The legislation would legalize retail sales of raw milk or cream produced in Missouri at grocery stores, restaurants, soda fountains, or similar establishments, as long as the milk is clearly marked with a specified warning label.</p> <p>Currently, Missouri law only allows the sale and delivery of raw milk directly from farm to consumer.</p> <p>On Jan. 15, the <a href="https://house.mo.gov/CommitteeDetail.aspx?filter=compage&amp;committee=2200&amp;year=2020&amp;code=R%20&amp;viewCode=&amp;cluster=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House Agricultural Policy Committee</a> held a hearing on the bill.</p> <p>Passage of HB1335 would not only take another step toward opening up the raw milk market in the state; it would also move forward efforts to nullify a federal raw milk prohibition scheme.</p> <p><strong>Impact on Federal Prohibition</strong></p> <p>FDA officials insist that unpasteurized milk poses a health risk because of its susceptibility to contamination from cow manure, a source of E. coli.</p> <p>“It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed,” agency spokeswoman Tamara N. Ward said in November 2011.</p> <p>The FDA’s position represents more than a matter of opinion. In 1987, the feds implemented 21 CFR 1240.61(a), providing that, <em>“no person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized.”</em></p> <p>Not only do the feds ban the transportation of raw milk across state lines; they also claim the authority to ban unpasteurized milk <em>within the borders of a state</em>.</p> <p>“It is within HHS’s authority…to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well,” FDA officials wrote in response to a <a href="http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund </a>lawsuit against the agency over the interstate ban.</p> <p>The FDA clearly wants complete prohibition of raw milk and some insiders say it’s only a matter of time before the feds try to institute an absolute ban. Armed raids by FDA agents on companies like Rawsome Foods back in 2011 and Amish farms over the last few years also indicate this scenario may not be too far off.</p> <p>When states allow the sale of raw milk within their borders, it takes an important step toward nullifying this federal prohibition scheme.</p> <p>We saw this demonstrated dramatically in states that legalized industrial hemp even as the federal government maintained virtual prohibition. When states authorized production, farmers began growing industrial hemp, even in the face of a federal ban. Despite facing the possibility of federal prosecution, some growers were still willing to step into the void and begin cultivating the plant once the state removed its barriers. Eventually, the pressure on the feds led to <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/26/feds-legalize-hemp-but-not-cbd-states-can-continue-to-nullify-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the repeal of hemp prohibition</a>.</p> <p>In the same way, removing state barriers to raw milk consumption, sale and production would undoubtedly spur the creation of new markets for unpasteurized dairy products, no matter what the feds claim the power to do.</p> <p>It could ultimately nullify the interstate ban as well. If all 50 states allow raw milk, markets within the states could easily grow to the point that local sales would render the federal ban on interstate commerce pointless. And history indicates the feds do not have the resources to stop people from transporting raw milk across state lines – especially if multiple states start legalizing it. Growing markets will quickly overwhelm any federal enforcement attempts.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB1335 must pass the House Agriculture Policy Committee by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Raw Milk State Bills FDA food freedom HB1335 Missouri unpasteurized milk Mike Maharrey Facial Recognition Pushback at the State and Local Level https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/facial-recognition-pushback-at-the-state-and-local-level/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4c629ed5-c7d1-5015-4c4e-adb725cb2122 Thu, 16 Jan 2020 16:41:05 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/facial-recognition-pushback-at-the-state-and-local-level/" title="Facial Recognition Pushback at the State and Local Level" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />A recent study revealed that the United States is the fourth-biggest violator of biometric privacy in the world. I recently appeared on the Corbett Report to talk about how the rising government use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance techniques threatens our privacy and what we can do about it. In this interview, I [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/facial-recognition-pushback-at-the-state-and-local-level/" title="Facial Recognition Pushback at the State and Local Level" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-selfie-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>A recent study revealed that <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/07/america-ranks-as-fourth-worst-abuser-of-biometric-privacy-in-the-world/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the United States is the fourth-biggest violator of biometric privacy in the world</a>. I recently appeared on the Corbett Report to talk about how the rising government use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance techniques threatens our privacy and what we can do about it.<span id="more-34025"></span></p> <p><iframe title="Facial Recognition Pushback - Michael Maharrey on The Corbett Report" width="1080" height="608" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uY-fWCTc56I?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p>In this interview, I talk about the rapid growth in the use of facial recognition technology and the threat it poses to privacy. I also explain how it ties into the broader, ever-growing American surveillance state. Corbett calls it &#8220;technocratic tyranny.&#8221; But the discussion isn&#8217;t all negative. I also highlight the growing movement to limit or ban facial recognition technology both at the local and state level.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video Facial Recognition Interviews Local biometric surveillance facial recognition Fourth Amendment Privacy Mike Maharrey Arizona Bill Would Expunge Marijuana Possession Charges https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/arizona-bill-would-expunge-marijuana-possession-charges/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:0b0d52ab-329c-28de-112b-9b1132a715bb Thu, 16 Jan 2020 14:28:24 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/arizona-bill-would-expunge-marijuana-possession-charges/" title="Arizona Bill Would Expunge Marijuana Possession Charges" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />PHOENIX, Ariz. (Jan. 16, 2020) &#8211; A bill filed in the Arizona House would automatically expunge criminal records relating to marijuana charges and convictions. Passage of the bill would allow people to clear their records and take another small step toward nullifying federal marijuana prohibition in effect. A coalition of three Democrats filed House Bill [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/arizona-bill-would-expunge-marijuana-possession-charges/" title="Arizona Bill Would Expunge Marijuana Possession Charges" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>PHOENIX</strong>, Ariz. (Jan. 16, 2020) &#8211; A bill filed in the Arizona House would automatically expunge criminal records relating to marijuana charges and convictions. Passage of the bill would allow people to clear their records and take another small step toward nullifying federal marijuana prohibition in effect.<span id="more-34047"></span></p> <p>A coalition of three Democrats filed House Bill 2178 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/HB2178/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB2178</a>) on Jan. 10. The legislation would require state courts to expunge the record of a person&#8217;s arrest, conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana. Under the law, a person whose record is expunged would be treated in all respects as if that person was never arrested, convicted or sentenced.</p> <p>In effect, people in Arizona could still be criminally prosecuted for marijuana possession under state law and would suffer any resulting criminal penalties if convicted, but the conviction would not remain on their record. This would eliminate the life-long struggle people with criminal charges on their record face when applying for jobs, housing and other things.</p> <p>HB2178 creates an expungement process for any person who&#8217;s charges aren&#8217;t automatically expunged.</p> <p>The new law will not only help some people with prior marijuana arrests and convictions on their records get a new start, but it will also further undermine federal marijuana prohibition. As marijuana becomes more accepted and more states simply ignore the feds, the federal government is less able to enforce its unconstitutional laws. Marijuana use is spreading across the U.S. despite continued federal prohibition.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>Arizona legalized marijuana for medical use in 2011. This removed a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, but federal prohibition remains in place. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p>Passage of HB2178 would further undermine prohibition make it that much more difficult for the federal government to enforce it in Arizona.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Arizona joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB2178 will be officially introduced and referred to a committee when the legislature convenes on Jan. 13. It will have to pass committee by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Drug War State Bills Arizona cannabis Expungement HB2178 Marijuana Mike Maharrey Signed by the Governor: New Jersey Law Requires Strict Asset Forfeiture Reporting https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/signed-as-law-new-jersey-bill-requires-strict-asset-forfeiture-reporting/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:18cf30bf-7882-236f-2a0e-155c225bb9d6 Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:28:19 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/signed-as-law-new-jersey-bill-requires-strict-asset-forfeiture-reporting/" title="Signed by the Governor: New Jersey Law Requires Strict Asset Forfeiture Reporting" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />TRENTON, N.J. (Jan. 16, 2020) – On Monday, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed a bill that imposes strict reporting requirements for all asset forfeitures in the state. This legislation takes a first step that could lead to substantive reforms, including closing a federal loophole that allows police to bypass strict state asset forfeiture laws. [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/signed-as-law-new-jersey-bill-requires-strict-asset-forfeiture-reporting/" title="Signed by the Governor: New Jersey Law Requires Strict Asset Forfeiture Reporting" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/new-jersey-map-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>TRENTON</strong>, N.J. (Jan. 16, 2020) – On Monday, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed a bill that imposes strict reporting requirements for all asset forfeitures in the state. This legislation takes a first step that could lead to substantive reforms, including closing a federal loophole that allows police to bypass strict state asset forfeiture laws.<span id="more-34060"></span></p> <p>Sen. Shirley Truner (D-Ewing) introduced Senate Bill 1963 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/S1963/2018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">S1963</a>) with a bipartisan coalition of three cosponsors in February. The new law requires law enforcement agencies to report extensive details about asset forfeitures in the state including the type and value of property seized and whether someone was charged with a crime when the property was forfeited. It also requires agencies to report all cases adopted by the federal government. The law requires that information to be compiled on a publicly available website.</p> <p>The Assembly unanimously <a href="https://legiscan.com/NJ/rollcall/S1963/id/900576" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">passed S1963 by a 77-0 vote</a>. The Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/NJ/rollcall/S1963/id/769460" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">passed S1963 by a 37-0 vote</a> last summer. With Murphy’s signature, the requirements will go into effect on Aug 1.</p> <p>While passage of S1963 doesn&#8217;t reform New Jersey asset forfeiture laws, it sets a foundation to do so in the future. By increasing transparency, the legislation allows New Jerseyites to actually see the reality of asset forfeiture. As the saying goes, sunlight is the best antiseptic. Transparency often creates the momentum needed to drive future change.</p> <p>The Tenth Amendment Center is part of a coalition of seven organizations that supported passage. A <a href="https://v6mx3476r2b25580w4eit4uv-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Civil-Asset-Forfeiture-Reform-Coalition-Letter-005.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">letter released by the coalition</a> paints a bleak picture of current forfeiture law in the Garden State.</p> <blockquote><p>“Under civil forfeiture, law enforcement agencies can seize and then take title to cash, cars, and other valuables without charging anyone with—let alone convicting them of—a crime. Compounding these problems, New Jersey law does not require any forfeiture reporting. Instead, the Office of the Attorney General governs the reporting process through rulemaking and requires only the most basic details to be reported. And even those basic details are difficult to track down—the AG’s office does not compile aggregate reports, so interested parties must file lengthy and expensive Open Public Records Act requests to obtain the information. For example, the Institute for Justice recently requested from the AG’s office two years of counties’ and municipalities’ forfeiture reports, which cost IJ over $5,000 and took over 18 months to obtain.”</p></blockquote> <p>The requirement to report all cases adopted by the federal government could set the stage to close a loophole that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws in a vast majority of situations. This is particularly important in light of a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/30/states-can-thwart-new-doj-asset-forfeiture-policy/">policy directive issued last July by Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> for the Department of Justice (DOJ).</p> <p>The coalition letter specifically addressed this issue.</p> <blockquote><p>“Finally, even when state legislatures impose restrictions on civil asset forfeiture, law enforcement may skirt state law by forfeiting property federally—and still receive a share of the proceeds—through a process known as “federal equitable sharing.”</p></blockquote> <p>Another bill moving through the New Jersey legislature would reform the state asset forfeiture laws to require a conviction in many cases, but the loophole remains.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>“<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH6vYLXTfGI">Equitable Sharing</a>” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The new DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies often bypass more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.</p> <p>Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state closed the loophole</a> in 2016.</p> <p>New Jersey could close this loophole in most situations by effectively withdrawing from the federal program. We recommend the following language.</p> <blockquote> <div>A local, county or state law enforcement agency shall not refer, transfer or otherwise relinquish possession of property seized under state law to a federal agency by way of adoption of the seized property or other means by the federal agency for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Public Law 91 513-Oct. 27, 1970.under the federal Controlled Substances Act or other federal law.</div> <div></div> <div>In a case in which the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized has a value of $50,000 or less, excluding the value of contraband, a local, county or state law enforcement agency or participant in a joint task force or other multijurisdictional collaboration with the federal government (agency) shall transfer responsibility for the seized property to the state prosecuting authority for forfeiture under state law.</div> <div></div> <div>If the federal government prohibits the transfer of seized property and currency to the state prosecuting authority as required by paragraph (1) and instead requires the property be transferred to the federal government for forfeiture under federal law, the agency is prohibited from accepting payment of any kind or distribution of forfeiture proceeds from the federal government.</div> </blockquote> <p>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> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing New Jersey Policing for Profit S1963 Mike Maharrey West Virginia Bill Takes on Federal Gun Control; Past, Present and Future https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-takes-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:8d0f7528-c7bb-e707-9eb2-d4de54f66df8 Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:15:08 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-takes-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/" title="West Virginia Bill Takes on Federal Gun Control; Past, Present and Future" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />CHARLESTON, W. Va. (Jan. 15, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the West Virginia House would set the foundation to create a gun sanctuary state by prohibiting enforcement of past, present and future federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-takes-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/" title="West Virginia Bill Takes on Federal Gun Control; Past, Present and Future" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/2A-2020-west-virginia-011520-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>CHARLESTON</strong>, W. Va. (Jan. 15, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the West Virginia House would set the foundation to create a gun sanctuary state by prohibiting enforcement of past, present and future federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state in practice and effect.<span id="more-34044"></span></p> <p>Del. Joe Jeffries (R-Putnam), along with 10 Republican cosponsors, introduced House Bill 4168 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/bill/HB4168/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB4168</a>) on Jan. 14. The legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, or regulations” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.</p> <p>The bills include a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:</p> <ul> <li>taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect on firearms ownership;</li> <li>registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;</li> <li>any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.</li> </ul> <p>The proposed law defines “law-abiding citizen” as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.”</p> <p>Under the proposed law, infringement on the right to keep and bear arms would include the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Pres. Trump’s <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/10/states-should-nullify-trumps-unconstitutional-bump-stock-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bump-stock ban</a>, proposed federal “red-flag laws,” and any future gun control schemes implemented by the federal government.</p> <p>The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.</p> <blockquote><p>“Sovereign, official, or qualified immunity shall not be an affirmative defense in such actions.”</p></blockquote> <p>The bills also include provisions that would apply to federal agents who knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringing acts identified in the law, or who give material aid and support to such enforcement efforts.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.</p> <p>In other words, Missouri law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in Missouri law enforcement again.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p>Some gun-rights supporters have argued that such a measure is “unnecessary” because it addresses a nonexistent problem with a divided Congress and an NRA-backed president. Trump’s bump stock ban obliterates this fallacy. Furthermore, the Trump administration actually <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/29/report-trump-administration-ramps-up-enforcement-of-federal-gun-laws/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ramped up enforcement of federal gun laws in 2017</a>.</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of West Virginia can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB4168 was referred to the <a href="http://www.wvlegislature.gov/committees/house/HouseCommittee.cfm?Chart=jud" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House Judiciary Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. Supporters of the bill who live in West Virginia should contact all the members of the committee and firmly, but respectfully, ask them to vote YES on HB4168. <a href="http://www.wvlegislature.gov/committees/house/HouseCommittee.cfm?Chart=jud">Contact info can be found at this link</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills firearms Gun Control HB4168 second amendment West Virginia Mike Maharrey Seven and Counting: Cambridge Massachusetts Passes Facial Recognition Ban https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/seven-and-counting-cambridge-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:cb7a2de7-7edf-8583-b231-137fead39e38 Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:43:58 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/seven-and-counting-cambridge-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" title="Seven and Counting: Cambridge Massachusetts Passes Facial Recognition Ban" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Jan 14, 2019) – Last Monday night, the Cambridge City Council passed a measure banning facial recognition technology in the city. The growing movement to prohibit the use of facial recognition at the state and local levels could hinder the operation of a growing national facial recognition network. Cambridge Mayor McGovern, along with [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/seven-and-counting-cambridge-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" title="Seven and Counting: Cambridge Massachusetts Passes Facial Recognition Ban" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/facial-recognition-jan-2020-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>CAMBRIDGE</strong>, Mass. (Jan 14, 2019) – Last Monday night, the Cambridge City Council passed a measure banning facial recognition technology in the city. The growing movement to prohibit the use of facial recognition at the state and local levels could hinder the operation of a growing national facial recognition network.<span id="more-34056"></span></p> <p>Cambridge Mayor McGovern, along with Councilors Craig Kelley and Sumbul Siddiqui, <a href="https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&amp;MeetingID=2399&amp;MediaPosition=&amp;ID=9847&amp;CssClass=" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">proposed the ban last summer in a resolution</a>. The amendment to the <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/city-of-cambridge-passes-ordinance-taking-on-surveillance-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Surveillance Technology Ordinance passed last year</a> prohibits any city department from intentionally accessing or using face recognition technology. It also bars the use of any information obtained from such technology.</p> <p>The amendment <a href="https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/01/14/cambridge-facial-recognition" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">passed 9-0</a>.</p> <p>McGovern announced the passage to the measure in a tweet.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Cambridge joins a small but growing number of cities who are stepping up to protect residents from intrusive and undemocratic technology.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Cambridge became the fourth Massachusetts city to pass a ban on facial recognition technology, joining <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/three-and-counting-northampton-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Northampton</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/brookline-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brookline</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/second-in-the-nation-somerville-city-council-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Somerville</a>. The city of <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/springfield-massachusetts-considering-facial-recognition-technology-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Springfield</a> is considering a similar ban, and there are also <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/massachusetts-committee-holds-hearing-on-bills-to-put-moratorium-on-police-use-of-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bills moving through the Massachusetts state legislature</a> to place a  statewide moratorium on facial recognition technology.</p> <p>Efforts in Massachusetts make up part of a broader nationwide movement to limit this invasive surveillance technology at the local and state level. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/first-in-the-nation-san-francisco-passes-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">San Francisco</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/oakland-city-council-unanimously-approves-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oakland</a>, and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/four-and-counting-berkeley-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Berkeley</a><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/second-in-the-nation-somerville-city-council-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">.</a> have all prohibited government use of facial recognition technology, The California governor recently <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/signed-as-law-california-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">signed a bill</a> that imposes a 3-year ban on the use of the tech in conjunction with police body-worn cameras, leading to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/san-diego-shuts-down-massive-facial-recognition-system-to-comply-with-new-california-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the shutdown of one of the biggest facial recognition programs in the country</a>. The New York Assembly is considering <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/new-york-assembly-passes-bill-to-ban-facial-recognition-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a bill to ban facial recognition in schools</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/new-york-bill-would-ban-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">on police body cameras</a>.</p> <p><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 local ordinances banning facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Facial Recognition Local Cambridge Fourth Amednment Massachusetts Nullification Privacy surveillance Mike Maharrey New York Bill Would Protect Physicians’ Right to Make Vaccine-Related Decisions, Reject Federal Narrative https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/new-york-bill-would-protect-physicians-right-to-make-vaccine-related-decisions-reject-federal-narrative/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:597c3b2d-23d0-14e1-ac75-d5b76bd84829 Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:18:42 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/new-york-bill-would-protect-physicians-right-to-make-vaccine-related-decisions-reject-federal-narrative/" title="New York Bill Would Protect Physicians&#8217; Right to Make Vaccine-Related Decisions, Reject Federal Narrative" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_152009789-new-york-albany-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_152009789-new-york-albany-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_152009789-new-york-albany-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_152009789-new-york-albany-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_152009789-new-york-albany-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />ALBANY, N.Y. (Jan. 15, 2019) &#8211; A bill introduced in the New York Assembly would protect a medical providers’ rights to make vaccine-related decisions and push back against any future federal vaccine mandates. Assemblyman David DiPietro [R] introduced Assembly Bill 8867 (A8867) on Jan 8. The legislation would amend New York law to protect medical [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/new-york-bill-would-protect-physicians-right-to-make-vaccine-related-decisions-reject-federal-narrative/" title="New York Bill Would Protect Physicians&#8217; Right to Make Vaccine-Related Decisions, Reject Federal Narrative" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_152009789-new-york-albany-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_152009789-new-york-albany-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_152009789-new-york-albany-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_152009789-new-york-albany-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/shutterstock_152009789-new-york-albany-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>ALBANY</strong>, N.Y. (Jan. 15, 2019) &#8211; A bill introduced in the New York Assembly would protect a medical providers’ rights to make vaccine-related decisions and push back against any future federal vaccine mandates.<span id="more-34059"></span></p> <p>Assemblyman David DiPietro [R] introduced Assembly Bill 8867 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/A08867/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A8867</a>) on Jan 8. The legislation would amend New York law to protect medical providers in instances where they opt <em>not</em> to administer vaccines or they write a medical exemption from the vaccine requirements. Under the bill, it would <em>not </em>be considered professional misconduct for a medical provider covered by the bill to do any of the following:</p> <ul> <li>fail to immunize any patient under his/her care if such a patient refuses, or a person in parental relation to a child refuses consent to immunize the child;</li> <li>provide a certification that any immunization may be detrimental to a patient&#8217;s health if, in his/her professional judgment, such immunization poses a risk to such patient; or</li> <li>provide any treatment or care to a patient who has not received any immunizations required by law.</li> </ul> <p>Furthermore, under the proposed law:</p> <ul> <li>medical providers covered by the bill would not be subject to any proceedings, including investigations, for misconduct for any of the actions listed above; and</li> <li>a certification discussed above by a medical provider covered by the bill would not be subject to review by any department, public officer or board.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Passage of A8867 would protect medical providers’ rights to practice medicine in accordance with their professional judgment.  </strong></p> <p>Passage of A8867 would protect medical providers’ rights to make vaccine-related decisions in accordance with their professional judgment, including when doing so results in patients not receiving any or all of vaccinations recommended by the CDC.</p> <p>Vaccine mandates, which are based upon CDC recommendations, currently exist at the <em>state </em>level and apply only to<em> children</em>. States have historically allowed all or some of the following three types of exemptions:  1.) religious; 2.) philosophical; and 3.) medical. However, states are increasingly rolling back or eliminating exemptions, with recent examples of this occurring in New York, Washington, Maine and California. [2] [3]</p> <p>Prior to June 13, 2019, New York had both a religious and a medical exemption. On June 13, 2019, the New York legislature pushed a bill to repeal the religious exemption through both the New York Assembly and Senate in one day, with no public hearing, in an unprecedented move that prevented citizen participation in the process. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill into law on the same date. [4] This whirlwind move left New York with only one remaining exemption remaining, a medical exemption. [5]</p> <p>California has stood in these same shoes as New York, with only one exemption in place, a medical exemption, since late June of 2015. However, in a “chipping away” approach, California’s sole remaining exemption was significantly weakened on September 9, 2019, when California enacted SB276, despite extensive citizens’ protests against it. As a result of SB276’s enactment, the standard to qualify for a medical exemption in California beginning in 2021 will be much stricter than that previously in place and will likely prevent most children who were previously granted an exemption from qualifying for one. [6] [7] As a further result of SB276, state appointees will have the ultimate decision making power regarding medical exemptions and multiple conditions and requirements will be placed upon doctors writing exemptions which will strongly disincentivize them from doing so (i.e., physicians can’t charge for filling out the medical exemption form or for a physical examination related to the renewal of a temporary medical exemption; the health department is to make notification to the medical board if it believes that a doctor is contributing to “a public health risk” by writing an exemption; the health department is to make notification to the medical board if a doctor has five or more medical exemption forms revoked in a calendar year; and if there is a pending <em>accusation </em>against a doctor with the medical board, an exemption form will not be accepted from that doctor until the accusation is resolved in favor of the doctor).  [8] [9]</p> <p>Passage of A8867 would help to prevent a hollowing out of New York’s last remaining exemption in the manner that California has recently experienced.</p> <p>Further, New Yorkers are currently faced with several bills, which, if passed, would erode parental vaccine rights and/or the right to refuse vaccinations, making this legislative session a particularly important one for those concerned about protecting informed consent. Examples of such bills are as follows:</p> <ul> <li>A973/ S3899: Would allow children to consent to drugs and vaccines to prevent sexually-transmitted diseases without parental knowledge or consent. [10]</li> <li>A2316/ S2276: Would mandates influenza vaccines for persons attending daycare, pre-k, and K-12 [11]</li> <li>A2912 / S298b: Would mandate Merck’s Gardasil vaccine for HPV for all children born after January 1, 2009 [12]</li> <li>A6564c / S4244c: Would permit administering vaccines to children at least fourteen years of age without parental knowledge or consent. [13]</li> </ul> <p><strong>Effect on Federal Policy</strong></p> <p>Although no federal vaccine mandates currently exist, there’s reason to believe that the <em>federal </em>government may impose mandates shortly and that the mandates may not be limited to children. Passage by states of laws that preserve vaccine-related rights, such as AB 8867, would push back against this.</p> <p>Mandates are increasingly being issued at a federal level around the world, such as in Argentina, Italy and France. [14] [15] In the U.S., in February of 2019, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, then Commissioner of the FDA, made comments to CNN indicating that the federal government has the authority to mandate vaccines and could step in with mandates if states don’t require more children to be vaccinated. [16] Gottlieb resigned as FDA Commissioner in May of 2019, shortly after making the comments, and joined the Board of Directors of Pfizer, Inc., a vaccine manufacturer, in June of 2019. [17] His departure from a high-level CDC position into a high-level position with a vaccine manufacturer was not unusual, which has given rise to concerns that the vaccine industry has inappropriate influence over the CDC. [18]</p> <p>Further, in the U.S., the feds have explicitly stated the goals of increasing overall vaccination rates and increasing rates specifically in the adult population. These goals are discussed in the National Vaccine Plan (NVP) and the National Adult Immunization Plan (NAIP), respectively, which can be found on HHS’s website. [19] [20]</p> <p>There are many reasons to be concerned about vaccine mandates, some of which are discussed below.</p> <p><strong>The government has removed liability for vaccine manufacturers and those administering vaccines.</strong></p> <p>Although almost all U.S. manufacturers are subject to product liability, the federal government has lifted this burden from the manufacturers of most vaccines Americans receive. Liability has also been lifted for those administering the vaccines. This resulted from the 1986 passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) and subsequent amendments to the Act, along with the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision in <em>Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.</em> [21]</p> <p>The 1986 Act also created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), a special system outside of the normal litigation process for claims of harm caused by vaccines, in which the government is the defendant, not the vaccine manufacturers. Any compensation granted by the NVICP is paid by the public, through a surcharge on vaccines, and not by vaccine manufacturers. Over $4 billion has been paid out to date under this system. [22]</p> <p>The lack of liability for vaccine manufacturers creates an obvious disincentive to make vaccines as safe as possible.</p> <p><strong>Normal Rules of Discovery Don’t Apply to Vaccine Manufacturers. </strong></p> <p>During product liability litigation, companies generally must respond to discovery. This requires them to produce relevant records, such as e-mails and research records, and to answer interrogatories and requests for admissions. However, the vaccine industry has nearly uniquely been given a pass in this area as well. Discovery is not permitted in the NVICP process and, pursuant to the NCVIA, vaccine manufacturers cannot be made to submit to discovery in connection with claims of vaccine injury.</p> <p><strong>The number of vaccines and the number of doses of vaccines on the schedules is growing significantly.</strong></p> <p>Since liability was removed from vaccine manufacturers in 1986, the number of vaccines recommended by the industry and the CDC has risen sharply. The CDC currently recommends 70 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18. [23] This is a significant increase from the 24 doses of 7 childhood vaccines recommended by the CDC in 1983. [24]</p> <p>The expanding number of vaccines being administered has prompted safety concerns. For example, because aluminum is an ingredient in multiple vaccines, concerns have arisen about whether receiving all of the vaccines on the recommended schedules can cause aluminum toxicity. Some research points to this possibility. A recent study in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology concluded that the current CDC childhood vaccine schedule is 15.9 times over the recommended safe level of aluminum when researchers adjusted for body weight and also estimated that a child who followed the vaccine schedule would be in a state of “chronic toxicity” for 70% of the child’s first seven months of life, 149 days from birth to seven months. [25] [26] Additionally, there is a growing body of scientific evidence which indicates a possible connection between aluminum and autism.  [27] [28]</p> <p>The expanding number of recommended vaccines is especially alarming when considered from a lifetime perspective. Many Americans are unaware that the CDC has <em>both </em>a<em> </em>childhood vaccine schedule and an adult one. [29] A person receiving all of the recommended doses on both schedules would receive a lifetime total of approximately 149 vaccine doses. [30] Further, hundreds of new vaccines are in the developmental process and it is expected that many will be added to the CDC’s schedules.</p> <p>Once the CDC’s vaccine schedules are mandated by federal law, Americans will continue to be subject to them even as more vaccines and doses are added, in a dangerous slippery slope.</p> <p><strong>Vaccines safety testing is far less rigorous than the public may believe.</strong></p> <p>Surprisingly, the safety testing required of vaccines, a product mandated to be injected into children, is far less rigorous than that required for drugs. The FDA has classified vaccines as “biologics” rather than “drugs,” thereby allowing vaccine manufacturers to forego the multi-year, double-blind inert placebo-controlled studies required for drug approval. [31] Almost all vaccine safety studies are conducted without a control group of unvaccinated individuals receiving nothing but an inert placebo. [32] Generally, if a “control” group is used, it receives a substance which is <em>not </em>inert, such as another vaccine or an adjuvant such as aluminum. [33]</p> <p>Additionally, vaccines are subject to very short periods of monitoring for adverse reactions, often of 14 days or less. [34] [35] Short monitoring periods are particularly concerning in light of research which shows a possible connection between vaccines and medical conditions that may take years to develop, such as autoimmune disorders. The possible scientific connection between vaccines and autoimmune conditions is thoroughly explored and documented in the book <em>Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness </em>by Thomas Cowan, MD. [36]</p> <p><strong>The science regarding the safety, necessity and efficacy of vaccines is not settled.  </strong></p> <p>The mainstream media receives a substantial portion of its revenue from the pharmaceutical industry. It also routinely reports that vaccines are “safe and effective” and that the science concerning them is “settled.” However, there are a multitude of vaccines licensed in the U.S., each having a unique set of ingredients, a unique dosing schedule and a unique body of relevant scientific research. Further, each vaccine is administered to a unique human being with his or her own medical history, genetic background and medical vulnerabilities. Additionally, each vaccine must be researched from multiple angles, looking at safety, efficacy and necessity. Therefore, the scientific issues surrounding vaccines are vast and complex. The “safe and effective” mantra broad-brushes a highly complex scientific area with a simplistic slogan. As discussed below, there are many reasons to conclude that the science related to vaccines is unsettled and that further study on the topic is needed.</p> <p>First, the CDC hasn’t required studies comparing the health outcomes of children vaccinated in accordance with the CDC’s schedule with those of unvaccinated children and evidence exists which indicates that unvaccinated children, or children receiving less than the full CDC schedule of vaccines, may have better health outcomes than those who receive the full schedule. For example, on July 18, 2019, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) posted an article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of CHD, entitled “Fully Vaccinated v. Unvaccinated – A Summary of the Research” summarizing the results of multiple studies comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated conducted since 1999 by independent scientists and, according to the article, “[t]hose studies indicate high incidence of chronic diseases and brain and immune system injuries among vaccinated compared to unvaccinated cohorts.” [37] Another article posted by the CHD team on March 19, 2019, and entitled “Real-Life Data Show that the CDC Vaccine Schedule is Causing Harm” discusses <em>ten years</em> of practice data from Dr. Paul Thomas, a Board-certified pediatrician in Oregon, which reflects that the unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children in Dr. Thomas’ practice had a dramatically lower risk of autism compared to children vaccinated according to the CDC schedule. [38]</p> <p>Additionally, despite the fact that the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule includes recommendations that children receive multiple vaccines in the same office visit, the CDC hasn’t required safety testing of the vaccines in these combinations. [39] Without conducting this testing, the safety of the vaccines in these combinations hasn’t been established.</p> <p>In fact, some of the greatest scientific controversy regarding vaccines may surround two of the vaccines which are the subject of proposed mandates in New York this legislative session:  the influenza vaccine and the Gardasil vaccine.</p> <p>Approximately half of the claims compensated in the NVICP have been for influenza vaccine injuries. [40] Further, some studies have shown a statistically significant increase in miscarriages when women received an influenza vaccine. [41] Independent journalist Jeremy R. Hammond has recently published a comprehensive four-part series regarding the influenza vaccine (with a fifth and final installment planned) which, in part, reviews claims made about the influenza vaccine in the mainstream media against a wide body of scientific information and the information he cites arguably dispels the notion that the potential risks of receiving the influenza vaccine are outweighed by those associated with foregoing it. [42] His series is an excellent resource for those interested in learning about the potential benefits and risks of the influenza vaccine and it certainly demonstrates the complexity of the risk factors involved.</p> <p>Scientific evidence also exists which calls into question the assertion that receiving the Gardasil vaccine is less risky than foregoing it. Some of the evidence is discussed in the article posted on May 21, 2019, by CHD entitled, “25 Reasons to Avoid the Gardasil Vaccine.”  Information in the article indicates that the risks related to cervical cancer are outweighed by risks from the vaccine and that the vaccine potentially carries severe adverse effects, such as the risk of diminished fertility. [43]</p> <p>In light of the complexity and breadth of information that should be considered when making vaccine decisions, anyone considering vaccination may wish to educate him/herself on the issue. Several books have been published recently which set forth useful scientific information concerning the safety, efficacy and necessity of vaccinating in accordance with the CDC schedules. These includes the book <em>Vaccines – A Reappraisal</em> by Dr. Richard Moskowitz, a family physician with over fifty years of experience, which discusses a wide range of information concerning vaccines, such as:  epidemiological research which indicates that vaccines may interfere with the normal development of a healthy immune system; information concerning the role that vaccines can play in causing infectious disease outbreaks; and evidence of the surprisingly low effectiveness levels of many vaccines. [44] Additionally, <em>Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers</em> by Neil Z. Miller contains over 400 peer-reviewed scientific studies regarding vaccines, including, among others, ones indicating harmful effects from certain vaccines, increased risks of certain medical conditions associated with some vaccines, and a protective effect against certain diseases which is conferred by having certain infectious diseases, such as measles and mumps. [45] Further, J.B. Handley’s book <em>How to End the Autism Epidemic</em> contains scientific information indicating potential harm caused by vaccines, particularly focusing on aluminum’s use as an adjuvant in many vaccines and on the evidence of a causal link between vaccines and autism. [46]</p> <p><strong>States must resist federal vaccine mandates as </strong><strong>mandates place decision-making regarding a complex medical intervention in the hands of bureaucrats.</strong></p> <p>As discussed above, the scientific issues related to vaccines are highly complex. Individuals may wish to retain the right to make vaccination decisions based upon the advice of their chosen medical professionals rather than relinquishing this right to bureaucratic mandates. Further, medical professionals can be most effective when their professional judgment is not interfered with by bureaucrats.</p> <p>As we have seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, federal regulation becomes ineffective when states enact contradictory policies. If multiple states pass laws that preserve the public’s rights with respect to vaccination decisions, it will become difficult for the federal government to enforce future federal mandates. Such state laws will also undermine the federal narrative and make it more difficult for the feds to generate support for nationwide mandatory vaccine policies.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>A8867 was referred to the Assembly Health Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <p><strong>Additional Resources</strong></p> <p>The websites below contain additional information regarding vaccines that you may find helpful.</p> <ul> <li>Children’s Health Defense. <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/</a></li> <li>The HighWire with Del Bigtree. <a href="https://thehighwire.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://thehighwire.com/</a></li> <li>Informed Consent Action Network. <a href="https://www.icandecide.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener State Bills Vaccines A8867 CDC FDA Healthcare New York Davis Taylor Virginia 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries: What Happens Next? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/virginia-2nd-amendment-sanctuaries-what-happens-next/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:54cb20b0-cd87-bf37-a187-432452ba7584 Wed, 15 Jan 2020 18:58:30 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/virginia-2nd-amendment-sanctuaries-what-happens-next/" title="Virginia 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries: What Happens Next?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-011520.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-011520.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-011520-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-011520-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-011520-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />With the 2020 legislative session underway in Virginia &#8211; and a big lobby day planned for Jan 20th &#8211; what comes next for efforts to stand up for the right to keep and bear arms in the face of proposals for new restrictions? Michael Boldin talks about a few of the most-likely scenarios. Path to [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/virginia-2nd-amendment-sanctuaries-what-happens-next/" title="Virginia 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries: What Happens Next?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-011520.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-011520.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-011520-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-011520-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-011520-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>With the 2020 legislative session underway in Virginia &#8211; and a big lobby day planned for Jan 20th &#8211; what comes next for efforts to stand up for the right to keep and bear arms in the face of proposals for new restrictions? Michael Boldin talks about a few of the most-likely scenarios.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: January 15, 2020<span id="more-34061"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/wQcamttLncA?start=56" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>PODCAST VERSION</strong></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&amp;isi=691797987&amp;ius=googleplaymusic&amp;apn=com.google.android.music&amp;link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ic7vaa26zzqtt2zmxovxwkxktem?t%3DPath_to_Liberty%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Play</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/virginia-2nd-amendment-sanctuaries-rhetoric-vs-reality/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Virginia 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries: Rhetoric vs Reality</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/top-5-reasons-to-not-trust-sheriffs-virginia-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-edition/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Top-5 Reasons to Not Trust Sheriffs: Virginia 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Edition</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/ama-on-virginia-2nd-amendment-sanctuaries-resolutions-need-a-good-foundation-to-work/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">AMA on Virginia 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries: Resolutions Need a Good Foundation to Work</a></p> <p><a href="https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=b28f1d9ea359b104b09836c4c&#038;id=544cc11224" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">VACDL Lobby Day Statement and Message to VA Gov</a></p> <p><a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sbj+068" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Virginia Gun Control Legislation</a> </p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/7861e77c-4167-4825-b2f7-d4e7e3f52d3f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/AOJpWK9QxiVu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittubers.com/post/6a285f31-df00-4da1-9b10-07e749c33487" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bittubers</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/536442815" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1yNGapgnwVbKj" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+WpTF9sPZg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video Path to Liberty Right to Keep and Bear Arms 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries Gun Control Gun Rights Strategy VACDL Virginia Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 42:13 With the 2020 legislative session underway in Virginia – and a big lobby day planned for Jan 20th – what comes next for efforts to stand up for the right to keep and bear arms in the face of proposals for new restrictions? With the 2020 legislative session underway in Virginia – and a big lobby day planned for Jan 20th – what comes next for efforts to stand up for the right to keep and bear arms in the face of proposals for new restrictions? Michael Boldin talks about a few of the most-likely scenarios. Path to […] Trump Administration Runs Obamaesque Budget Deficit Over $1 Trillion in 2019 https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/14/trump-administration-runs-obamaesque-budget-deficit-over-1-trillion-in-2019/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:d884dda4-11bf-8a1a-f72e-50b6a38d6397 Tue, 14 Jan 2020 22:51:02 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/14/trump-administration-runs-obamaesque-budget-deficit-over-1-trillion-in-2019/" title="Trump Administration Runs Obamaesque Budget Deficit Over $1 Trillion in 2019" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />The Trump administration ran an Obamaesque budget deficit of over $1 trillion in the 2019 calendar year. It was the first budget deficit over $1 trillion in any calendar year since 2012. The budget shortfall from January through December totaled $1.02 trillion, according to the latest report issued by the Treasury Department. That was a [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/14/trump-administration-runs-obamaesque-budget-deficit-over-1-trillion-in-2019/" title="Trump Administration Runs Obamaesque Budget Deficit Over $1 Trillion in 2019" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/money-burning-2020-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>The Trump administration ran an Obamaesque budget deficit of over $1 trillion in the 2019 calendar year.<span id="more-29014"></span></p> <p>It was the first budget deficit over $1 trillion in any calendar year since 2012.</p> <p>The budget shortfall from January through December totaled $1.02 trillion, according to the <a href="https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts1219.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">latest report issued by the Treasury Department</a>. That was a 17.1 percent increase over the 2018 deficit, which was a 28.2 percent increase over 2017.</p> <p>The budget deficit for fiscal 2019 (October 2018-September 2019) <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/28/more-excuses-while-feds-run-biggest-deficit-in-seven-years/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">came in just under $1 trillion at $984 billion</a>. That represented 4.7 percent of GDP, the highest percentage since 2012. It was the fourth consecutive year in which the deficit increased as a percentage of GDP. The debt-to-GDP ratio is estimated to have increased a hefty 26 percent over last year.</p> <p>The CBO estimates the budget deficit for fiscal 2020 will eclipse $1 trillion.</p> <p>These are the kind of budget deficits one would expect to see during a major economic downturn. The federal government has only run deficits over $1 trillion in four fiscal years, all during the Great Recession. We’re approaching that number today, despite having what Trump keeps calling “<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/01/smoke-and-mirrors-the-greatest-economy-is-built-on-spending-and-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the greatest economy in the history of America</a>.”</p> <p>Generally, during economic expansions, government spending on social programs shrinks and tax revenues climb with increased economic activity. Revenues have increased over the last year, but they haven&#8217;t kept pace with the increase in government spending.</p> <p>The spending didn&#8217;t slow in the first quarter of fiscal 2020. Through the first three months of the current fiscal year, the deficit ballooned to $356.6 billion. That&#8217;s an 11.8 percent increase from a year ago. In just three months, Uncle Sam blew through $1.16 trillion. Spending through the first three months of FY2020 is up 6.5 percent over the spending through the first three months of fiscal 2019.</p> <p>Meanwhile, the national debt has climbed to $23.2 trillion.</p> <p>To put that into perspective, last February, the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/15/full-speed-to-a-fiscal-cliff-national-debt-hits-22-trillion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">national debt topped $22 trillion</a>. When President Trump took office in January 2017, the debt was at $19.95 trillion. That represented a $2.06 trillion increase in the debt in just over two years. The borrowing pace continues to accelerate. The Treasury <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/national-debt-climbs-over-800-billion-in-just-two-months/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">borrowed $800 billion in just two months late last summer</a>. (If you’re wondering how the debt can grow by a larger number than the annual deficit, economist <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/the-federal-budget-mess-is-even-worse-than-reported/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mark Brandly explains here</a>.)</p> <p>During the presidential campaign, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/trumps-broken-campaign-promise-on-the-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Trump promised to deal with the skyrocketing national debt</a>. In fact, he said he could take care of it “fairly quickly.” But the president hasn&#8217;t even played lip-service to reining in spending, instead, calling for more outlays for the military and championing paid parental leave for government employees.</p> <p>Trump supporters have mostly offered up excuses, shifting the blame for the ballooning national debt to &#8220;Democrats in Congress.&#8221; This ignores the fact that 2019 spending was approved the previous year when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. They also minimize the White House&#8217;s role in the budgeting process. In fact, the president has significant power and input in that process</p> <p>While Congress does ultimately pass spending bills, the president must sign them before they become law. He doesn’t have to sign bills that have spending he doesn&#8217;t want. If reining in debt and deficits was a priority, Trump would have vetoed these bills and insisted on spending cuts. Instead, he called for more spending, particularly for the military.</p> <p>Republicans will argue that increased defense spending is necessary for &#8220;national security.&#8221; But unsustainable budget deficits pose a significant threat to national security, especially considering China ranks as one of the biggest buyers of U.S. debt.</p> <p>The executive branch also plays an integral role in the budgeting process. Executive branch departments submit spending requests that Congress uses to set spending levels. The president has complete control over how much money various departments request.</p> <p>Finally, the president’s near-complete silence on deficits and debt indicates that it’s not a priority. Trump didn’t even mention the national debt during the last State of the Union address.</p> <p>Congress does in fact bear a great deal of responsibility for Uncle Sam’s fiscal malfeasance, but so does the president. His supporters need to quit making excuses, hold his feet to the fire and insist that he deal with the debt.</p> <p>The spending trajectory is unsustainable. If we are running $1 trillion deficits now, what will the country&#8217;s financial situation look like when the next recession hits? Congress and the president can continue to kick the can down the road, but they are about to run out of pavement.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Economy budget deficit Government Spending national debt President Trump Mike Maharrey Amazon Admits Employees Have Secretly Watched Ring Camera Customers https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/amazon-admits-employees-have-secretly-watched-ring-camera-customers/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:fe3698ef-c21f-665e-9857-75ebef16cf71 Tue, 14 Jan 2020 15:06:59 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/amazon-admits-employees-have-secretly-watched-ring-camera-customers/" title="Amazon Admits Employees Have Secretly Watched Ring Camera Customers" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/amazon-ring-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/amazon-ring-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/amazon-ring-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/amazon-ring-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/amazon-ring-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />In a letter to U.S. senators, tech behemoth Amazon admits that it has fired employees discovered to have been spying on customers using the company’s Ring cameras. Although the Ring cameras were originally marketed as a way to see who’s standing outside the door before opening it, many users have installed the surveillance equipment inside [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/amazon-admits-employees-have-secretly-watched-ring-camera-customers/" title="Amazon Admits Employees Have Secretly Watched Ring Camera Customers" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/amazon-ring-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/amazon-ring-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/amazon-ring-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/amazon-ring-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/amazon-ring-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>In a letter to U.S. senators, tech behemoth Amazon admits that it has fired employees discovered to have been spying on customers using the company’s Ring cameras.</p> <p>Although the Ring cameras were originally marketed as a way to see who’s standing outside the door before opening it, many users have installed the surveillance equipment inside the house.</p> <p>Ring&#8217;s eight-page letter was a response to inquiries made by five U.S. senators regarding the company’s security policies and findings of the company’s internal audits. In November 2019 Senators Ron Wyden, Chris Van Hollen, Edward J. Markey, Christopher A. Coons, and Gary C. Peters co-signed the letter looking for answers to questions about stories of privacy breaches being reported in the media.</p> <p>The letter to legislators, signed by Amazon Vice President of Public Policy Brian Huseman, explains that Ring received four complaints of its employees viewing of Ring data “that exceeded what was necessary for their job functions.” Huseman reports in the letter that “after determining that the individual violated company policy, the individual was terminated.”</p> <p>It is unclear whether Huseman means that one individual in each of the four complaints was fired, or whether the abuse of access to data reported to Ring resulted in the termination of only one of the employees investigated by Ring.</p> <p>Regardless, use of the Ring cameras is rapidly increasing. In my neighborhood, three of my four closest neighbors have a Ring doorbell camera installed at their front door. Of course, the survey of my neighbors’ use of the Amazon surveillance device is not evidence of its wider use, but it is evidence of just how farseeing is the sight of a company that has admitted its employees secretly spy on customers.</p> <p>Just how many Americans have bought Amazon’s Ring cameras is not known, and in the letter to the senators, Huseman refuses to disclose the number, revealing only that “millions of customers have purchased a Ring device.”</p> <p>It strains the imagination to think that of all the millions of feeds of live video unauthorized access has only happened four times. Nevertheless, Amazon is to be commended for its efforts to stop serious infringements on the privacy of people using its products.</p> <p>The access to the live video feeds of Ring customers by Amazon employees was first reported by The Intercept. The authors of that story discovered that people in Ukraine hired by Ring were given access to user video for research purposes. In its letter, Ring explains, “The R&amp;D team in Ukraine can only access publicly available videos and videos available from Ring employees, contractors, and friends and family of employees or contractors with their express consent.”</p> <p>Of course, the location of people peeping on customers seems of secondary import at best.</p> <p>Apparently, Ring surveillance devices aren’t only vulnerable to unwanted access by Amazon employees. The following chilling account was published in December 2019 by Vice:</p> <blockquote><p>A blaring siren suddenly rips through the Ring camera, startling the Florida family inside their own home.</p> <p>&#8220;It&#8217;s your boy Chance on Nulled,&#8221; a voice says from the Ring camera, which a hacker has taken over. &#8220;How you doing? How you doing?”</p> <p>&#8220;Welcome to the NulledCast,&#8221; the voice says.</p> <p>The NulledCast is a podcast livestreamed to Discord. It&#8217;s a show in which hackers take over people&#8217;s Ring and Nest smarthome cameras and use their speakers to talk to and harass their unsuspecting owners. In the example above, Chance blared noises and shouted racist comments at the Florida family.</p> <p>&#8220;Sit back and relax to over 45 minutes of entertainment,&#8221; an advertisement for the podcast posted to a hacking forum called Nulled reads. &#8220;Join us as we go on completely random tangents such as; Ring &amp; Nest Trolling, telling shelter owners we killed a kitten, Nulled drama, and more ridiculous topics. Be sure to join our Discord to watch the shows live.”</p> <p>Software to hack Ring cameras has recently become popular on the forum.</p> <p>The software churns through previously compromised email addresses and passwords to break into Ring cameras at scale.</p> <p>This has led to a recent spate of hacks that have occurred both during the podcast and at other times, several of which have been covered by local media outlets. In Brookhaven a hacker shouted at a sleeping woman through her hacked Ring camera to wake up. In Texas, a hacker demanded a couple pay a bitcoin ransom. Hackers targeted a family in DeSoto County, Mississippi, and spoke through the device to one of the young children.</p></blockquote> <p>In response to these rattling incidents of invasion of its customers’ homes, Ring devices now sound an alarm when someone is accessing the device from a new location.</p> <p>“Requiring two-factor [authentication] for new accounts is a step in the right direction, but there are millions of consumers who already have a Ring camera in their homes who remain needlessly vulnerable to hackers. Amazon needs to go further — by protecting all Ring devices with two-factor authentication. It is also disturbing to learn that Ring’s encryption of user videos lags behind other companies, who ensure that only users have the encryption keys to access their data,&#8221; Senator Wyden said, speaking of the security measures deployed by Ring in the wake of the worrying invasion of lives and homes by hackers.</p> <p>Finally, while Ring customers are undeniably justified to fear hackers invading their homes through these devices or Ring employees watching them in unguarded moments, there is yet another group with access to the sights and sounds collected by Ring surveillance devices that is potentially more menacing.</p> <p>Amazon’s Ring home security service has entered into contracts with over 200 police departments, giving law enforcement expansive access to the video and audio collected by the service’s surveillance devices.</p> <p>A visit to Amazon’s Ring Security System’s product page reveals to possible customers — and those worried about personal privacy — all the data that Amazon is making available — without prior permission or notice of Ring customers — to police departments.</p> <blockquote><p>Monitor your property in HD video, and check-in on home at anytime with Live View on-demand video and audio.</p> <p>Hear and speak to people on your property from your mobile device with the built-in microphone and speakers.</p> <p>Activate the siren from your phone, tablet and PC to scare away any suspicious people caught on camera.</p></blockquote> <p>Perhaps most troubling is the fact that the images and sounds recorded by Ring can be obtained from Ring customers without a warrant. Admittedly, the homeowner would need to give permission to police, but pressure would be there. As millions of Americans are fond of saying, “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide.” So complying with a request from police for access to their security camera footage would be regarded by many as their civic duty.</p> <p>All the foregoing reveals that as the federal government expands its surveillance net across the globe, there are millions of Americans who actually pay to have cameras and microphones, with known vulnerabilities to unwanted access and control, installed in and around their homes. We seem to be adding strings to the net with cords of our own making.</p> <p><strong>Originally published at <a href="https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/33968-nsa-official-refuses-to-reveal-the-success-or-failure-of-phone-surveillance"><em>The New American Magazine</em></a></strong></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Current Events Surveillance Amazon Amazon Ring surveillance Joe Wolverton, II West Virginia Bill Would Legalize Limited Sales of Raw Milk; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-would-legalize-limited-sales-of-raw-milk-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f6531093-3a22-5ed6-bffa-f423c3c89c36 Tue, 14 Jan 2020 12:50:08 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-would-legalize-limited-sales-of-raw-milk-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/" title="West Virginia Bill Would Legalize Limited Sales of Raw Milk; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-2019-b-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-2019-b-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-2019-b-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-2019-b-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-2019-b-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />CHARLESTON, W. Va. (Jan. 14, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the West Virginia House would legalize limited raw milk sales in the state and take a step toward nullifying a federal prohibition scheme in effect. Del. Isaac Sponaugle (D-Franklin) along with a coalition of four Republicans, introduced House Bill 2643 (HB2643) on Jan. 8. [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-would-legalize-limited-sales-of-raw-milk-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/" title="West Virginia Bill Would Legalize Limited Sales of Raw Milk; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-2019-b-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-2019-b-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-2019-b-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-2019-b-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/milk-general-2019-b-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>CHARLESTON</strong>, W. Va. (Jan. 14, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the West Virginia House would legalize limited raw milk sales in the state and take a step toward nullifying a federal prohibition scheme in effect.<span id="more-34032"></span><span id="more-32060"></span></p> <p>Del. Isaac Sponaugle (D-Franklin) along with a coalition of four Republicans, introduced House Bill 2643 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/bill/HB2643/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB2643</a>) on Jan. 8. Titled the <em>West Virginia Farm Fresh Raw Milk Act</em>, the legislation would legalize producer to consumer sales of raw milk and raw milk products.</p> <p>According to the bills&#8217; statement of purpose, &#8220;the West Virginia Farm Fresh Raw Milk Act is to allow for the sale and consumption of homemade and farm-fresh raw milk and raw milk products and to encourage the expansion of raw milk dairy sales by small farm producers and accessibility of their products to informed end consumers.&#8221; Under the proposed law, sales would be limited to home consumption by the informed end consumer. Resale would be prohibited. HB2643 includes provisions to license producers, along with health and safety regulations.</p> <p>Passage of HB2643 would build on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/05/west-virginia-law-taking-first-step-to-legalize-raw-milk-now-in-effect/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a law passed in 2016</a> that legalized raw milk consumption in West Virginia under so-called herd share agreements.</p> <p>Passage of HB2643 would not only take another step toward opening up the raw milk market in the state; it would also move forward efforts to nullify a federal raw milk prohibition scheme.</p> <p><strong>Impact on Federal Prohibition</strong></p> <p>FDA officials insist that unpasteurized milk poses a health risk because of its susceptibility to contamination from cow manure, a source of E. coli.</p> <p>“It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed,” agency spokeswoman Tamara N. Ward said in November 2011.</p> <p>The FDA’s position represents more than a matter of opinion. In 1987, the feds implemented 21 CFR 1240.61(a), providing that, <em>“no person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized.”</em></p> <p>Not only do the feds ban the transportation of raw milk across state lines, they also claim the authority to ban unpasteurized milk <em>within the borders of a state</em>.</p> <p>“It is within HHS’s authority…to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well,” FDA officials wrote in response to a <a href="http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund </a>lawsuit against the agency over the interstate ban.</p> <p>The FDA clearly wants complete prohibition of raw milk and some insiders say it’s only a matter of time before the feds try to institute an absolute ban. Armed raids by FDA agents on companies like Rawsome Foods back in 2011 and Amish farms over the last few years also indicate this scenario may not be too far off.</p> <p>When states allow the sale of raw milk within their borders, it takes an important step toward nullifying this federal prohibition scheme.</p> <p>We saw this demonstrated dramatically in states that legalized industrial hemp even as the federal government maintained virtual prohibition. When states authorized production, farmers began growing industrial hemp, even in the face of a federal ban. Despite facing the possibility of federal prosecution, some growers were still willing to step into the void and begin cultivating the plant once the state removed its barriers. Eventually, the pressure on the feds led to <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/26/feds-legalize-hemp-but-not-cbd-states-can-continue-to-nullify-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the repeal of hemp prohibition</a>.</p> <p>In the same way, removing state barriers to raw milk consumption, sale and production would undoubtedly spur the creation of new markets for unpasteurized dairy products, no matter what the feds claim the power to do.</p> <p>It could ultimately nullify the interstate ban as well. If all 50 states allow raw milk, markets within the states could easily grow to the point that local sales would render the federal ban on interstate commerce pointless. And history indicates the feds do not have the resources to stop people from transporting raw milk across state lines – especially if multiple states start legalizing it. Growing markets will quickly overwhelm any federal enforcement attempts.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB2643 was referred to the <a href="http://www.wvlegislature.gov/committees/house/HouseCommittee.cfm?Chart=agr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Raw Milk State Bills FDA food freedom HB2643 unpasteurized milk West Virginia Mike Maharrey Now in Effect: Hawaii Law Decriminalizes Marijuana Possession, Expunges Some Criminal Records https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/now-in-effect-hawaii-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession-expunges-some-criminal-records/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3eed5e84-433c-9fe7-fb2e-02cc23686176 Mon, 13 Jan 2020 23:38:50 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/now-in-effect-hawaii-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession-expunges-some-criminal-records/" title="Now in Effect: Hawaii Law Decriminalizes Marijuana Possession, Expunges Some Criminal Records" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />HONOLULU, Hawaii (Jan 13, 2020) &#8211; A new Hawaii law that decriminalizes marijuana possession and creates a process to expunge the records of certain marijuana offenders is now in effect. The new law takes another step toward nullifying federal cannabis prohibition in effect in the state. Twenty Democratic representatives sponsored House Bill 1383 (HB1383). The [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/now-in-effect-hawaii-decriminalizes-marijuana-possession-expunges-some-criminal-records/" title="Now in Effect: Hawaii Law Decriminalizes Marijuana Possession, Expunges Some Criminal Records" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/hawaii-flag-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>HONOLULU</strong>, Hawaii (Jan 13, 2020) &#8211; A new Hawaii law that decriminalizes marijuana possession and creates a process to expunge the records of certain marijuana offenders is now in effect. The new law takes another step toward nullifying federal cannabis prohibition in effect in the state.<span id="more-34043"></span><span id="more-33203"></span></p> <p>Twenty Democratic representatives sponsored House Bill 1383 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/HI/bill/HB1383/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB1383</a>). The new law decriminalizes possession of three grams or less of marijuana making it similar to a traffic violation punishable by a fine of $130. The bill also creates a process allowing individuals convicted of possession of three grams of marijuana or less to have those convictions expunged from their criminal records. Finally, HB1383 establishes a marijuana evaluation task force to make recommendations on changing marijuana use penalties and outcomes in the state.</p> <p>The House passed HB1383 by a 35-16 vote. The Senate approved the measure 22-3. Gov. David Ige didn’t sign or veto the bill within his allotted timeframe and it became law on July 10 without his signature. It went into effect Jan. 1, 2020.</p> <p>Enactment of HB1383 not only loosens marijuana laws and will help those with some prior marijuana convictions on their record get a new start; it will also further undermine federal marijuana prohibition. As marijuana becomes more accepted and more states simply ignore the feds, the federal government is less able to enforce its unconstitutional laws.</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>Decriminalization, along with Hawaii’s medical marijuana program, removed a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of cannabis in the state, but federal prohibition remains in place. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p>HB1383 further undermines prohibition make it that much more difficult for the federal government to enforce it in Hawaii.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Enactment of HB1383 ignores federal prohibition and continues the process of nullifying it in practice in Hawaii.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including Hawaii allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.</p> <p>“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Drug War State Bills cannabis decrimiinalization Hawaii HB1383 Marijuana Mike Maharrey Arizona Bill Would Require Conviction Before Asset Forfeiture https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/arizona-bill-would-require-conviction-before-asset-forfeiture/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:7e09c3f3-8d7a-01bd-8110-537a950cbaac Mon, 13 Jan 2020 23:37:53 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/arizona-bill-would-require-conviction-before-asset-forfeiture/" title="Arizona Bill Would Require Conviction Before Asset Forfeiture" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/11/forfeiture-arizona-112119.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/11/forfeiture-arizona-112119.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/11/forfeiture-arizona-112119-980x513.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/11/forfeiture-arizona-112119-480x251.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1200px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/11/forfeiture-arizona-112119-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />PHOENIX, Ariz. (Jan. 13, 2020) – A bill prefiled in the Arizona House would reform the state’s asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking a person’s property without a criminal conviction in most situations. The proposed legislation would build on important reforms signed into law in 2017. Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff) filed House [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/arizona-bill-would-require-conviction-before-asset-forfeiture/" title="Arizona Bill Would Require Conviction Before Asset Forfeiture" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/11/forfeiture-arizona-112119.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/11/forfeiture-arizona-112119.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/11/forfeiture-arizona-112119-980x513.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/11/forfeiture-arizona-112119-480x251.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1200px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/11/forfeiture-arizona-112119-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>PHOENIX</strong>, Ariz. (Jan. 13, 2020) – A bill prefiled in the Arizona House would reform the state’s asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking a person’s property without a criminal conviction in most situations. The proposed legislation would build on important reforms signed into law in 2017.<span id="more-34045"></span></p> <p>Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff) filed House Bill 2149 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/HB2149/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB2149</a>) on Jan. 9. Under the proposed law, Arizona prosecutors would not be able to proceed with the asset forfeiture process without a criminal conviction.</p> <p>HB2149 is similar to another bill prefiled for the upcoming session (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/HB2032/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB2032</a>)</p> <p>An <a href="http://azcir.org/news/2017/01/10/arizona-asset-rico-seizures-net-200m-in-past-five-years/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">AZCIR</a> analysis in 2017 found that Arizona agencies seized nearly $200 million in property between 2011 and 2015 from people who may never have been charged or convicted of a crime.</p> <p>In 2017, Gov. Doug Ducey <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/now-in-effect-new-arizona-law-takes-on-state-federal-asset-forfeiture/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">signed a bill into law</a> that enacted modest reforms to the state’s forfeiture laws and closed a loophole that enabled prosecutors to circumvent state laws by passing cases off to the feds. HB2149 would build on the foundation set in that law and further reform the state’s asset forfeiture process.</p> <p>In 2017, the legislature increased the evidentiary standard necessary for the state to win a forfeiture case. It also took a big step toward closing a loophole that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws in a vast majority of situations. This is particularly important in light of a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/30/states-can-thwart-new-doj-asset-forfeiture-policy/">policy directive issued in July 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> for the Department of Justice (DOJ).</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/federal-asset-forfeiture-program-helps-local-police-steal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Equitable Sharing</a>” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.</p> <p>Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state closed the loophole</a> in 2016.</p> <p>According to an <a href="http://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-Arizona/">Institute for Justice report</a>, Arizona has been one of the worst offenders of this program:</p> <blockquote><p><em>Arizona law enforcement’s use of the Department of Justice’s equitable sharing program results in a ranking of 32<sup>nd</sup> nationally. In calendar years 2000 to 2013, Arizona law enforcement agencies received nearly $70 million in DOJ equitable sharing proceeds, averaging just under $5 million per year.</em></p></blockquote> <p>The 2017 reforms effectively close this loophole. The law reads in part:</p> <blockquote><p>The seizing agency or the attorney for the state may not enter into any agreement to transfer or refer seized property to a federal agency for the purpose of forfeiture if the property was seized pursuant to an investigation that either:</p> <p>1.  Did not involve a federal agency.</p> <p>2.  Involves a violation of a state law and no violation of a federal law is alleged.</p> <p>Property that is seized in a joint investigation may not be transferred or referred to a federal agency for the purpose of forfeiture unless the gross estimated value of the seized property is more than seventy‑five thousand dollars.</p></blockquote> <p>Reporting in some areas has revealed that 85 percent of seizures received by law enforcement agencies through the federal equitable sharing program did not meet a $50,000 threshold. Supporters view the aw’s higher requirement as significant.</p> <p>“While we’d like to see Arizona and every other state completely opt-out of this federal program, an 80-85 percent reduction in seizures through this federal scheme is a huge step forward to nullify it in practice and effect,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said.</p> <p>Requiring a criminal conviction is the next logical step. With the federal loophole closed, the passage of HB2032 would make it virtually impossible for police to take a person’s assets without first establishing their guilt.</p> <p><strong>OPPOSITION</strong></p> <p>HB2149 will likely face stiff opposition from law enforcement lobbyists. This was the case for the more modest reforms. Activists obtained letters sent to representatives from at least three police departments opposing the 2017 bill. (<a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/339535680/Law-Enforcement-Letters-Opposing-Asset-Forfeiture-Reform-in-Arizona">click here to read the documents</a>)</p> <p>Grassroots activists in the state, including Arizona Tenth Amendment Center volunteers Joel Alcott and Michael Gibbs, put in long hours opposing law enforcement lobbying efforts and nursing the 2017 reforms through the process. Boldin called the grassroots efforts “a difference-maker.”</p> <blockquote><p>“The law enforcement lobby in Arizona is extremely powerful. I believe the volunteers and activists on the ground in Arizona were the difference between this billing passing and failing. There were a couple of times it looked dead. I can’t praise them enough for what they pulled off. It goes to show just how effective grassroots activism is at the state level.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/HB2032/2020</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Asset Forfeiture State Bills Arizona Equitable Sharing HB2149 Policing for Profit Mike Maharrey Today in History: Pres. Andrew Jackson Ratchets Up the Nullification Crisis https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/13/today-in-history-pres-andrew-jackson-ratchets-up-the-nullification-crisis/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:96824d4c-4930-2c88-db61-30d5cbc0a6a0 Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:18:04 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/13/today-in-history-pres-andrew-jackson-ratchets-up-the-nullification-crisis/" title="Today in History: Pres. Andrew Jackson Ratchets Up the Nullification Crisis" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/andrew-jackson-1200.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/andrew-jackson-1200.jpg 1200w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/andrew-jackson-1200-980x514.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/andrew-jackson-1200-480x252.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1200px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/andrew-jackson-1200-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Today in history, on Jan. 13, 1833, Andrew Jackson wrote a scathing letter to Martin Van Buren that explained his indignation toward South Carolina for nullifying the recent federal Tariff of 1832. The 1832 act followed its 1828 predecessor, which many called the “Tariff of Abominations” for its radical protectionist implications. The 1832 tariff altered [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/13/today-in-history-pres-andrew-jackson-ratchets-up-the-nullification-crisis/" title="Today in History: Pres. Andrew Jackson Ratchets Up the Nullification Crisis" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/andrew-jackson-1200.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/andrew-jackson-1200.jpg 1200w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/andrew-jackson-1200-980x514.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/andrew-jackson-1200-480x252.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1200px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/andrew-jackson-1200-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Today in history, on Jan. 13, 1833, Andrew Jackson wrote a scathing letter to Martin Van Buren that explained his indignation toward South Carolina for nullifying the recent federal Tariff of 1832.<span id="more-29013"></span></p> <p>The 1832 act followed its 1828 predecessor, which many called the “Tariff of Abominations” for its radical protectionist implications. The 1832 tariff altered the duties on some goods, but remained a highly protectionist measure. By drastically altering the buying patterns of the southern states to the benefit of northern manufacturers, the act forced southerners to buy northern goods that were often inferior and much more expensive.</p> <p>In response to the tariff, Jackson’s vice president John C. Calhoun resigned from the office, won a seat to the United States Senate, and orchestrated a campaign of opposition against the tariff. In his anonymous tract, “South Carolina Exposition and Protest,” Calhoun defended his case on the grounds that the power to establish a revenue tariff did not confer the ability to impose a tariff designed to eliminate foreign trade and give advantage to northern industry.</p> <p>Meanwhile, many in South Carolina openly called for immediate secession, believing Calhoun’s approach to be too moderate. Ultimately, South Carolina’s legislature nullified both the Tariff of 1828 and Tariff of 1832 on the grounds Calhoun espoused. Invoking Thomas Jefferson and James Madison’s language in Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the state declared the tariff “null, void, and no law.”</p> <p>Jackson spoke of using force against the state, threatening to march 50,000 men from Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. “The crisis must be now met with firmness,” Jackson wrote. He later sent naval warships into Charleston harbor and threatened to hang Calhoun and his acolytes, exacerbating the tensions that defined the episode. Jackson condemned all those involved in nullifying the tariff was traitors against the United States. Meanwhile, South Carolina mobilized by drilling units to resist a potential invasion by the federal government.</p> <p>Despite Jackson’s tenacity to view nullification as a treasonous offense, the Constitution maintains a very different standard for such a distinction – only those “levying War against them [the states], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” had engaged in treason. Ironically, Jackson himself had more closely met this requisite by seeking to obtain the authority to invade South Carolina via the Force Bill, which eventually passed Congress. Only one senator – future president John Tyler – voted against the measure. Moreover, rather than permit it to carry out invasions against states, the Constitution obligates the federal government to protect each state from invasions thereof.</p> <p>Even an aged and retired Madison was drawn into the dispute. He <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/01/21/understanding-madisons-notes-on-nullification/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">penned a tract</a> that defended the constitutionality of the tariff and opposed South Carolina’s position that it could compel the other states to vote on the legitimacy of one state’s nullification pronouncement. In the same writing, however, Madison remained adamant that nullification of unconstitutional matters was “a remedy against insupportable oppression.”</p> <p>In the end, the rate of the tariff was renegotiated to a lower rate. South Carolina’s legislature rescinded its nullification of the tariff, proceeded to nullify the Force Bill, and concluded its session. The resentment left by this ordeal stirred for decades, where protectionist tariffs remained a contentious issue. Up to and including the 1861 Morrill Tariff, the matter pitted two incompatible economic visions against each other.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> History Andrew Jackson John Calhoun Martin Van Buren Nullification Crisis Today in History Dave Benner Purity Tests and Strategy: Advice from Leading Founders https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/purity-tests-and-strategy-advice-from-leading-founders/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:15b95579-afff-2b44-b413-e109938fa182 Mon, 13 Jan 2020 18:45:32 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/purity-tests-and-strategy-advice-from-leading-founders/" title="Purity Tests and Strategy: Advice from Leading Founders" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-011320.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-011320.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-011320-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-011320-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-011320-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Some people believe you should only support legislation, ideas, people &#8211; or anything for that matter &#8211; if everything they believe in is accomplished in one fell swoop. But this flies in the face of the winning strategy advised by some of the most prominent founders. Path to Liberty: January 13, 2020 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/purity-tests-and-strategy-advice-from-leading-founders/" title="Purity Tests and Strategy: Advice from Leading Founders" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-011320.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-011320.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-011320-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-011320-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-011320-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Some people believe you should only support legislation, ideas, people &#8211; or anything for that matter &#8211; if everything they believe in is accomplished in one fell swoop. But this flies in the face of the winning strategy advised by some of the most prominent founders.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: January 13, 2020<span id="more-34048"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/3gjEUdAAI7E?start=54" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>PODCAST VERSION</strong></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&amp;isi=691797987&amp;ius=googleplaymusic&amp;apn=com.google.android.music&amp;link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ic7vaa26zzqtt2zmxovxwkxktem?t%3DPath_to_Liberty%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Play</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_05.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">James Madison 1788</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-09-02-0286" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson 1816</a>, <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-1702" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">1820</a>, and <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-2444" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">1821</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/213" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">John Adams 1774</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/missouri-bills-federal-gun-control-past-present-future/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act Report</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/youd-better-nip-that-power-in-the-bud/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">John Dickinson artful rulers</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ny.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">John Williams New York Ratifying Convention</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.012_0134_0134/?st=text" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson 1790 to Clay</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-30-02-0392" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Jefferson to Madison 1798</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6854" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">John Adams 1818</a></p> <p><a href="https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/samuel-adams/samuel-adams-writing-as-candidus-essay-in-the-boston-gazette-oct-14-1771" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Samuel Adams 1771</a></p> <p><a href="https://mises.org/library/left-and-right-prospects-liberty" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Rothbard Left and Right</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/b6001b6c-20fe-469f-b1f0-27a94b29bb4b" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/FDke2h8G7uMp/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittubers.com/post/0df58ff5-4a01-43bf-88d4-23b1b4cb1fd2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bittubers</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/535460748" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1kvKpRvbrgPJE" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+JwkbybEZg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video Founding Fathers Path to Liberty Strategy James Madison John Adams John Dickinson Purity Tests Samuel Adams thomas jefferson Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 37:39 Some people believe you should only support legislation, ideas, people – or anything for that matter – if everything they believe in is accomplished in one fell swoop. But this flies in the face of the winning strategy advised by some of the most promi... Some people believe you should only support legislation, ideas, people – or anything for that matter – if everything they believe in is accomplished in one fell swoop. But this flies in the face of the winning strategy advised by some of the most prominent founders. Path to Liberty: January 13, 2020 PODCAST VERSION Subscribe: […] The Road to Hell: Good Intentions in Politics https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/12/the-road-to-hell-good-intentions-in-politics/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:91a7571e-55b3-c916-badc-22223de6ed40 Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:33:06 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/12/the-road-to-hell-good-intentions-in-politics/" title="The Road to Hell: Good Intentions in Politics" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/road-fire-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/road-fire-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/road-fire-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/road-fire-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/road-fire-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Election season is here, and with it comes bold talk from new politicians aspiring to hold office and incumbents looking to retain their seats. Both groups have one thing in common: They may talk a good game, but once campaign season is over their tunes will change. Promises made will be broken. Priorities will give [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/12/the-road-to-hell-good-intentions-in-politics/" title="The Road to Hell: Good Intentions in Politics" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/road-fire-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/road-fire-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/road-fire-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/road-fire-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/road-fire-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Election season is here, and with it comes bold talk from new politicians aspiring to hold office and incumbents looking to retain their seats. Both groups have one thing in common: They may talk a good game, but once campaign season is over their tunes will change. Promises made will be broken. Priorities will give way to reality, and when it comes time to make hard choices on critical issues, most lawmakers will fold.</p> <p>This comes as a surprise to no one. People expect very little from their elected representatives. Making excuses for disappointing politicians has virtually become a national pastime. Most people have a low opinion of Congress and their state’s general assembly.</p> <p>But ask them what they think of their own representatives, and you’ll hear something very different. Often, they’ll be quick to defend their hometown heroes, even if the reality of their performance doesn’t live up to what was promised during their campaigns.</p> <p>It’s easy to make excuses for people you supported — who told you they’d be in your corner. They may have voted the wrong way, you tell yourself, but they were just being pragmatic. Those bad votes weren’t because they lacked integrity, but because reality simply forced them to stray from their ideals. They didn’t mean to lie to you. They had good intentions.</p> <p>They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Whoever said that obviously never worked in government. The road to hell is paved by well-connected government contractors, atop land seized with eminent domain, and outfitted with unconstitutional red-light cameras and sobriety checkpoints. Good intentions might have inspired the situation we find ourselves in, but government did the legwork while voters looked the other way.</p> <p>There’s a running joke among those of us who wish to shrink the size and role of government: If you talk about such principles long enough, sooner or later someone will ask the question “but without government, who will build the roads?”</p> <p>This objection is comical because it misses the point. The choice isn’t between having a limited government and having roads. The choice is whether we demand a government that stands for liberty, or one that does not. Do we hold our representatives accountable for their actions, or make excuses for them based on their “good intentions?”</p> <p>Of course, voters are presented with false choices regularly. They’re told that even though a politician doesn’t stand up for their rights, they should support them anyway as the “lesser of two evils.” While game theory might suggest such support in a specific election, this same tired argument arises year after year. In a desperate attempt to avoid a terrible outcome, voters often endorse one that isn’t much better.</p> <p>It’s time to hold our elected officials accountable at every level, regardless of political affiliation. It’s easy to go into an election wearing partisan blinders, convincing yourself that only those on the opposing team have lost their way. Do not fall victim to such preconceptions. Despite the enthusiastic cries of those seeking your vote, this isn’t about Republican vs Democrat, rich vs poor, or majority vs minority.</p> <p>The ultimate battleground in the fight to preserve liberty has always been the government versus the individual. It’s been said that when the boot of government is on your throat, you won’t care if it’s the right boot or the left one. My guess is that you won’t care about “good intentions” either.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Current Events Elections Rep. Tony Lovasco (MO-64) Michigan Bill Would Ban Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/michigan-bill-would-ban-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:c91fe993-9459-44fe-e5bb-f2a0037aa26a Sat, 11 Jan 2020 21:09:30 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/michigan-bill-would-ban-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/" title="Michigan Bill Would Ban Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-michigan-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-michigan-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-michigan-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-michigan-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-michigan-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 11, 2019) – A bill introduced in the Michigan House would prohibit unconstitutional foreign combat deployments of the state’s national guard troops, an important step towards restoring the Founders’ framework for state-federal balance on the Guard. Rep. Steven Johnson (R-Wayland), along with a bipartisan coalition of two Republicans and two Democrats, introduced [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/michigan-bill-would-ban-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/" title="Michigan Bill Would Ban Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-michigan-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-michigan-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-michigan-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-michigan-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-michigan-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>LANSING</strong>, Mich. (Jan. 11, 2019) – A bill introduced in the Michigan House would prohibit unconstitutional foreign combat deployments of the state’s national guard troops, an important step towards restoring the Founders’ framework for state-federal balance on the Guard.<span id="more-34038"></span></p> <p>Rep. Steven Johnson (R-Wayland), along with a bipartisan coalition of two Republicans and two Democrats, introduced House Bill 5320 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MI/bill/HB5320/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB5320</a>) on Jan. 9. Johnson joined the U.S. Air Force in 2009. He served for four years, leading a team working on nuclear missile electronics in Montana. He was recently named &#8220;most conservative house member&#8221; in Michigan by <a href="https://mirsnews.com/welcome.php">MIRS News</a>.</p> <p>The legislation would prohibit the deployment of Michigan Guard troops in “active duty combat” unless there is a declaration of war from Congress, as required by the Constitution. It reads, in part:</p> <blockquote><p><em>the Michigan National Guard and any member of the Michigan National Guard shall not be released from this state into active duty combat unless the United States Congress has passed an official declaration of war or has taken an official action under clause 15 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States</em></p></blockquote> <p>Cosponsors include Reps. David LaGrand (D-Grand Rapids), Brad Paquette (R-Berrien Springs), John Reilly (R-Oakland) and Jewell Jones (D-Inkster).</p> <p><strong>IN PRACTICE</strong></p> <p>Guard troops have played significant roles in all modern overseas conflicts, with over 650,000 deployed since 2001. <em>Military.com</em> <a href="https://www.military.com/national-guard-birthday/national-guard-service-in-the-war-on-terror.html">reports</a> that “Guard and Reserve units made up about 45 percent of the total force sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and received about 18.4 percent of the casualties.” More specifically, West Virginia National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo and elsewhere.</p> <p>Since none of these missions have been accompanied by a Constitutional declaration of war, the Defend the Guard Act would have prohibited those deployments. Such declarations have only happened five times in U.S. history, with the last being at the onset of World War II.</p> <p><b>BACKGROUND</b></p> <p>Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.” In the Dick Act of 1903, Congress organized the militia into today’s National Guard, limiting the part of the militia that could be called into federal service rather than the “entire body of people,” which makes up the totality of the “militia.” Thus, today’s National Guard is governed by the “militia clauses” of the Constitution, and this view is <a href="https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&amp;did=439888">confirmed by the National Guard</a> itself.</p> <p>Clause 15 delegates to the Congress the power to provide for “calling forth the militia” in three situations only: 1) to execute the laws of the union, 2) to suppress insurrections, and 3) to repel invasions.</p> <p>During state ratifying conventions, proponents of the Constitution, including James Madison and Edmund Randolph, repeatedly assured the people that this power to call forth the militia into federal service would be limited to those very specific situations, and not for general purposes, like helping victims of a disease outbreak or engaging in “kinetic military actions.”</p> <p><b>RETURNING TO THE CONSTITUTION</b></p> <p>It is this limited Constitutional structure that advocates of the Defend the Guard Act seek to restore. That is, use of the Guard for the three expressly-delegated purposes in the Constitution, and at other times to remain where the Guard belongs, at home, supporting and protecting their home state.</p> <p>While getting this bill passed isn’t going to be easy, it certainly is, as Daniel Webster once noted, one of the reasons state governments even exist.” In 1814 speech on the floor of Congress, Webster urged similar actions to the Michigan Defend the Guard Act. He said:</p> <blockquote><p> “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB5320 has been assigned to the House Committee On <a href="http://house.michigan.gov/MHRPublic/CommitteeInfo.aspx?comcode=GOVE">Government Operations</a>. It will need to pass by a majority vote in each before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <p>Michigan residents who support the bill are strongly urged to contact each member of the Committee and firmly, but respectfully urge them to vote YES on HB5320 when it comes up for a hearing and vote. <a href="http://house.michigan.gov/MHRPublic/CommitteeInfo.aspx?comcode=GOVE">Contact info for committee members can be found at this link</a>.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Defend the Guard State Bills War Constitution HB5320 Michigan Militia National Guard War Powers Michael Boldin New York Bill Would Expand Raw Milk Sales, Set Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/new-york-bill-would-expand-raw-milk-sales-set-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:893ad27d-3954-0906-3469-2732b4cf4b42 Fri, 10 Jan 2020 18:12:26 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/new-york-bill-would-expand-raw-milk-sales-set-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/" title="New York Bill Would Expand Raw Milk Sales, Set Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />ALBANY, N.Y. (Jan. 10, 2020) &#8211; A bill filed in the New York Assembly would expand raw milk sales in the state through herd-share agreements. Passage of this bill would not only expand New York&#8217;s raw milk market; it would take a step toward nullifying a federal prohibition scheme in practice and effect. Assm. Kieran [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/new-york-bill-would-expand-raw-milk-sales-set-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/" title="New York Bill Would Expand Raw Milk Sales, Set Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/raw-milk-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>ALBANY</strong>, N.Y. (Jan. 10, 2020) &#8211; A bill filed in the New York Assembly would expand raw milk sales in the state through herd-share agreements. Passage of this bill would not only expand New York&#8217;s raw milk market; it would take a step toward nullifying a federal prohibition scheme in practice and effect.<span id="more-33067"></span></p> <p>Assm. Kieran Lalor (R-Hopewell Junction) and Assm. Angelo Morinello (R-Niagara Falls) introduced Assembly Bill 5867 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/NY/bill/A05867/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A5867</a>) . The proposed law would legalize the distribution of raw milk through herd-share agreements.  Under such agreements, consumers pay a farmer a fee for a “share” in either an individual animal, or a herd of cows, goats sheep or other milk-producing animals, In return, the owner of the share can obtain raw milk.</p> <p>Under current law, licensed farmers in New York can sell raw milk direct to the consumer on the farm. The legalization of herd-share agreements would allow farmers to effectively sell raw milk free from the state licensing requirements.</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>A5867 was referred to the <a href="https://assembly.state.ny.us/comm/?id=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Assembly Agriculture Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Raw Milk State Bills A5867 FDA food freedom New York unpasteurized milk Mike Maharrey Don’t Trust Politicians: Advice from the Founding Fathers https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/dont-trust-politicians-advice-from-the-founding-fathers/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:736d81b5-440f-7f99-6ce1-2ac6b9ddc1da Fri, 10 Jan 2020 18:06:15 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/dont-trust-politicians-advice-from-the-founding-fathers/" title="Don&#8217;t Trust Politicians: Advice from the Founding Fathers" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011020.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011020.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011020-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011020-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011020-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />While this should be totally obvious by now, a lot of people seem to only distrust politicians they don&#8217;t like. That&#8217;s easy. But where the Constitution and liberty faces great danger is through the millions of people who blindly trust politicians from their own team. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: January 10, 2020 PODCAST [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/dont-trust-politicians-advice-from-the-founding-fathers/" title="Don&#8217;t Trust Politicians: Advice from the Founding Fathers" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011020.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011020.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011020-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011020-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/fast-friday-011020-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>While this should be totally obvious by now, a lot of people seem to only distrust politicians they don&#8217;t like. That&#8217;s easy. But where the Constitution and liberty faces great danger is through the millions of people who blindly trust politicians from their own team.</p> <p>Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: January 10, 2020<span id="more-34033"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/JPnu7qSkRew" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>PODCAST VERSION</strong></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&amp;isi=691797987&amp;ius=googleplaymusic&amp;apn=com.google.android.music&amp;link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ic7vaa26zzqtt2zmxovxwkxktem?t%3DPath_to_Liberty%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Play</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/patrick-henry-virginia-ratifying-convention-va/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Patrick Henry speech 1788</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/01-02-02-0002-0002-0001" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">John Adams Notes for Braintree 1772</a></p> <p><a href="https://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-02-02-02-1924" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">James Madison 1829</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/Samuel-Adams-Letter-24Oct1780.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Samuel Adams 1780</a></p> <p><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=2DpLAAAAYAAJ&#038;pg=PA487&#038;lpg=PA487&#038;dq=richard+henry+lee+must+never+be+forgotten+under+gracious+manner+of+government&#038;source=bl&#038;ots=lfhZLEaaMO&#038;sig=ACfU3U2hYKRrJsajiOndFLNblMMKC8kNKQ&#038;hl=en&#038;sa=X&#038;ved=2ahUKEwjLhM7byPfmAhUSW60KHYapDnEQ6AEwBXoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&#038;q=richard%20henry%20lee%20must%20never%20be%20forgotten%20under%20gracious%20manner%20of%20government&#038;f=false" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Richard Henry Lee 1789</a></p> <p><a href="https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/resolutions-adopted-kentucky-general-assembly" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson 1798</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-11-02-0218" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">James Madison 1788</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/af12cad5-62fa-48a7-9414-b7b8b8201388" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/c0GmOiT1WQ3b/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittubers.com/post/01af36fb-daae-4a3c-a194-70be92b8190d" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bittubers</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/533851824" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1djGXRNaRYzxZ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+ynOKRFEZg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B7Je1tIFS-b/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6621458976133513216/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video Founding Fathers Path to Liberty Founders Politicians Quotes Trust Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 10:46 While this should be totally obvious by now, a lot of people seem to only distrust politicians they don’t like. That’s easy. But where the Constitution and liberty faces great danger is through the millions of people who blindly trust politicians from ... While this should be totally obvious by now, a lot of people seem to only distrust politicians they don’t like. That’s easy. But where the Constitution and liberty faces great danger is through the millions of people who blindly trust politicians from their own team. Path to Liberty, Fast Friday Edition: January 10, 2020 PODCAST […] West Virginia Bill Would Reform Asset Forfeiture Law to Require Criminal Conviction, Federal Loophole Would Remain https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-would-reform-asset-forfeiture-law-to-require-criminal-conviction-federal-loophole-would-remain/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:0026e21d-b53d-209b-f1c5-d3ce072aace9 Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:50:22 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-would-reform-asset-forfeiture-law-to-require-criminal-conviction-federal-loophole-would-remain/" title="West Virginia Bill Would Reform Asset Forfeiture Law to Require Criminal Conviction, Federal Loophole Would Remain" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />CHARLESTON, W. Va. (Jan. 10, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the West Virginia House would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction. But the legislation leaves a loophole in place allowing police to circumvent stricter state laws by passing cases off to the feds. Del. Stephen [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-would-reform-asset-forfeiture-law-to-require-criminal-conviction-federal-loophole-would-remain/" title="West Virginia Bill Would Reform Asset Forfeiture Law to Require Criminal Conviction, Federal Loophole Would Remain" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/forfeiture-state-general-1280-021419-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>CHARLESTON</strong>, W. Va. (Jan. 10, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the West Virginia House would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction. But the legislation leaves a loophole in place allowing police to circumvent stricter state laws by passing cases off to the feds.<span id="more-34024"></span></p> <p>Del. Stephen Wilson (R-Berkeley) introduced House Bill 2563 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/bill/HB2563/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB2563</a>) on Jan. 8. The legislation would require the state to prove that the owner of seized property has been convicted of a crime and that the seized property was substantially related to that crime before the state could take title to the seized property.</p> <p>The <a href="https://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-west-virginia/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Institute for Justice calls</a> West Virginia&#8217;s asset forfeiture laws some of the worst in the country.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;In order to forfeit property, the government need only tie it to a crime by a preponderance of the evidence. Further, in order to have their property returned, innocent owners must prove their innocence of the criminal activity in which their property was allegedly involved. Finally, West Virginia law enforcement agencies have every reason to police for profit—they retain 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Passage of HB2563 would significantly reform West Virginia’s asset forfeiture laws, but it fails to address a loophole that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws in a vast majority of situations. This is particularly important in light of a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/30/states-can-thwart-new-doj-asset-forfeiture-policy/">2017 policy directive issued by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> for the Department of Justice (DOJ).</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/federal-asset-forfeiture-program-helps-local-police-steal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Equitable Sharing</a>” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.</p> <p>Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state closed the loophole</a> in 2016.</p> <p>The West Virginia legislature should amend HB2563 with language to close the loophole and opt the state out of equitable sharing.</p> <blockquote> <div>A local, county or state law enforcement agency shall not refer, transfer or otherwise relinquish possession of property seized under state law to a federal agency by way of adoption of the seized property or other means by the federal agency for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Public Law 91 513-Oct. 27, 1970.under the federal Controlled Substances Act or other federal law.</div> <div></div> <div>In a case in which the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized has a value of $50,000 or less, excluding the value of contraband, a local, county or state law enforcement agency or participant in a joint task force or other multijurisdictional collaboration with the federal government (agency) shall transfer responsibility for the seized property to the state prosecuting authority for forfeiture under state law.</div> <div></div> <div>If the federal government prohibits the transfer of seized property and currency to the state prosecuting authority as required by paragraph (1) and instead requires the property be transferred to the federal government for forfeiture under federal law, the agency is prohibited from accepting payment of any kind or distribution of forfeiture proceeds from the federal government.</div> </blockquote> <p>Very few cases exceed the $50,000 threshold.</p> <p>As the Tenth Amendment Center <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/09/feds-meddling-in-attempt-to-undermine-state-asset-forfeiture-reform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">previously reported</a> the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.</p> <p>Why?</p> <p>We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB2563 was referred to the <a href="https://www.wvlegislature.gov/committees/house/HouseCommittee.cfm?Chart=jud" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House Judiciary Committee</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing HB2563 Policing for Profit West Virginia Mike Maharrey Where were all the Constitution’s defenders when the feds raised the smoking age? https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/10/where-were-all-the-constitutions-defenders-when-the-feds-raised-the-smoking-age/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:206b9a9e-313e-fedf-e03b-92cf95aa7056 Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:23:17 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/10/where-were-all-the-constitutions-defenders-when-the-feds-raised-the-smoking-age/" title="Where were all the Constitution&#8217;s defenders when the feds raised the smoking age?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/constitution-skeleton-1280-b.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/constitution-skeleton-1280-b.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/constitution-skeleton-1280-b-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/constitution-skeleton-1280-b-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/constitution-skeleton-1280-b-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Congress has no power to impose a single national age for local consumption. <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/10/where-were-all-the-constitutions-defenders-when-the-feds-raised-the-smoking-age/" title="Where were all the Constitution&#8217;s defenders when the feds raised the smoking age?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/constitution-skeleton-1280-b.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/constitution-skeleton-1280-b.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/constitution-skeleton-1280-b-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/constitution-skeleton-1280-b-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/constitution-skeleton-1280-b-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>On December 20, President Trump signed legislation purporting to impose a single national age of 21 for selling tobacco products.<span id="more-29008"></span></p> <p>Obviously, the measure reduces the freedom of millions of Americans who are legally adults in almost every other respect—including (<a href="https://i2i.org/pelosi-wants-to-lower-the-voting-age-to-16-it-should-be-raised-to-25/">correctly or not</a>) the right to vote. Moreover, setting minimum consumption ages is not a power the Constitution grants the federal government. The Constitution reserves it to the states.</p> <p>The issue here, of course, is not whether tobacco products are safe. They clearly are not. The issue here is whether our Constitution and the freedoms it protects are safe. As this episode demonstrates, they clearly are not.</p> <p>Regulating local sale and consumer use of products is an exercise of what lawyers call the “police power.” This phase does not refer to your local police officers; it is an older use of “police” to mean “policy.” The police power is authority to adopt regulations to protect public health, safety, morals, and the general welfare. Under the Constitution, the states retain broad police power, with constitutionally-imposed exceptions.</p> <p>By contrast, the Constitution grants the federal government only certain enumerated (listed) powers, including police power within Washington, D.C. and other federal enclaves and the federal territory. Outside those areas—as the Supreme Court has <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/598/">reiterated</a>—the federal government has no general police power.</p> <p>This is why when advocates of Prohibition sought to ban alcohol use, they did so by constitutional amendment.</p> <p>Those who benefit from centralized power are always touting some problem for which the “solution” is ever more centralized power, and they don’t care much about constitutional limits. In 1984 their “solution” was to impose a national drinking age of 21. However, in 1984 (unlike now), federal politicians recognized that they couldn’t do this by decree. Instead Congress adopted legislation making a relatively small portion of federal highway funds contingent on states raising their own drinking ages. The Supreme Court later <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/203/">upheld</a> this approach.</p> <p>To those who understand the Constitution, this was a dubious use of federal spending authority. But at least it showed that politicians retained a shred of respect for constitutional limits. That shred has now vanished. Republicans and Democrats, the president and his fiercest opponents—nearly all are complicit in this latest action.</p> <p>When supporters of unbridled federal economic intervention consider the Constitution at all, they cite the power the Constitution grants Congress “to regulate Commerce . . .  among the several States.” <a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/Commerce.pdf">Founding-era definitions</a> make it arguable whether a retail sale is “Commerce” as the Constitution uses the word. (To the founding generation commerce was usually transactions among merchants.) But if it is commerce, then it is local rather than interstate.</p> <p>It is true that the Constitution provides that Congress may adopt laws “necessary and proper” to carry out its powers. But as the Constitution’s advocates repeatedly pointed out during the debates over whether to ratify the document, the Necessary and Proper Clause merely <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item2703332/?site_locale=en_GB">explains</a> rather than extends congressional authority. It clarifies that while regulating interstate commerce Congress may govern incidental activities, such as packaging and inspection of goods sent from state to state.</p> <p>For example under the Constitution, Congress may require warning labels on products that cross state lines, just as states have authority to regulate, label, or even ban tobacco within their boundaries. But Congress has no power to impose a single national age for local consumption.</p> <p>Several aspects of this episode are worth noting.  First, violating the Constitution to satisfy popular demand is bad, but this was worse: The new law was merely the result of bureaucratic and lobbyist pressure. For years the Food and Drug Administration has wanted to expand its empire to include tobacco. During the Obama administration the FDA got its wish. This law ratifies FDA’s overreach.</p> <p>Second, Big Tobacco—foolishly thinking they could appease their enemies—supported the change. This is a textbook case of how bureaucrats and special interests team up to restrict the freedom and constitutional rights of others.</p> <p>Finally: The proverbial dog did not bark. In recent years, we have heard a great deal of political posturing about how we need to defend the Constitution. Leftists wrap themselves in the Constitution to promote impeachment, weaken our borders, and impose their social agendas. Conservative politicians and the president trumpet the need to retract federal power to constitutional limits. Yet in the end, the posturing of politicians amounted to nothing. Almost all crowded meekly onto the latest bureaucratic bandwagon.</p> <p><strong>This article <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/robnatelson/2020/01/07/where-were-all-those-defenders-of-the-constitution-when-the-feds-imposed-a-uniform-smoking-age-n2559036">first appeared</a> in Townhall.com.</strong></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Commerce Clause Current Events Donald Trump Tobacco Rob Natelson Today in History: Connecticut Becomes Fifth State to Ratify the Constitution https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/today-in-history-connecticut-become-fifth-state-to-ratify-the-constitution/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3eb17728-a354-4894-9094-7945aedc54cc Thu, 09 Jan 2020 19:40:21 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/today-in-history-connecticut-become-fifth-state-to-ratify-the-constitution/" title="Today in History: Connecticut Becomes Fifth State to Ratify the Constitution" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/FederalistsAmosDoolittle-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/FederalistsAmosDoolittle-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/FederalistsAmosDoolittle-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/FederalistsAmosDoolittle-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/FederalistsAmosDoolittle-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Today in history, on Jan. 9, 1788, Connecticut ratified the United States Constitution, becoming the fifth state to do so. The state&#8217;s chief proponents of the document were Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both of whom exercised considerable influence on the Constitution in Philadelphia. Ellsworth’s opening remarks noted that a union was necessary “for the [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/today-in-history-connecticut-become-fifth-state-to-ratify-the-constitution/" title="Today in History: Connecticut Becomes Fifth State to Ratify the Constitution" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/FederalistsAmosDoolittle-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/FederalistsAmosDoolittle-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/FederalistsAmosDoolittle-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/FederalistsAmosDoolittle-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/FederalistsAmosDoolittle-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Today in history, on Jan. 9, 1788, Connecticut ratified the United States Constitution, becoming the fifth state to do so.<span id="more-34036"></span></p> <p>The state&#8217;s chief proponents of the document were Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both of whom exercised considerable influence on the Constitution in Philadelphia. Ellsworth’s opening remarks noted that a union was necessary “for the purposes of a national defence.” He also concluded that the problems under the Articles of Confederation would be correctable through implementation of the new model. Appealing to the interests of Connecticut, Ellsworth asked, “If divided, what is to prevent the large states from oppressing the small?”</p> <p>Ellsworth recognized the cultural, political, and economic differences present in the states, believing that the new model would elevate his state’s position in the new union. Referring to New York, he asked: “Do we not already see in her the seeds of an overbearing ambition?” Ellsworth believed that Connecticut’s ratification could successfully challenge the expansionary tendencies of neighboring states, while also giving credence to the state’s influence in the general government.</p> <p>He also emphasized the structural advantage the new plan offered, pointing out that some countries, including Germany and the Dutch Republic, served as examples of federalist republics that thrived while preserving localized political authority.</p> <p>Oliver Wolcott wrote that the Constitution “effectually secures the states in their several rights. It must secure them for its own sake; for they are the pillars which uphold the general system.” Wolcott recognized that the general government derived its few powers from the states, which retained most powers. Certainly, they were the “pillars” which held the general government up. Without the states to provide the Constitution with life and validity, there would be no general government.</p> <p>Richard Law also made an important contribution by drawing a strict contrast between Great Britain’s executive and legislature and the proposed branches under the Constitution. He explained that “our president is not a king, nor our senate a house of lords. They do not claim an independent heredity authority. But the whole is elective; all dependent on the people. The president, the senate, the representatives, are all creatures of the people. Therefore the people will be secure from oppression.” This philosophy is consistent with the traditional republican view that governments derive all authority from the people. Without the people’s consent, a government’s rule is illegitimate.</p> <p>Sherman, writing under the pseudonym “A Countryman,” worked to dispel some of the other allegations against the Constitution. These attacks against the Constitution, said Sherman, were “nonsense and alarm.” Like several other prominent Federalists, Sherman did not believe a bill of rights was necessary because such rights were not alterable under the existing constitutional model. After all, no provision of the Constitution explicitly gave the government the power to deny individuals the right to assemble, worship, or possess firearms.</p> <p>In addition, Sherman pointed out that the state of Connecticut already had its own bill of rights, enacted so that the citizens’ liberties were already affirmed. Sherman wrote of Connecticut’s “General Assembly under your present constitution are supreme…so long as the members of the General assembly are as much interested, and interested in the same manner as the other subjects.” Sherman assured that the Congress “can take no improper step” to assume powers not granted, and that “we need not apprehend that they will usurp authorities not given them to injure that society of which they are a part.”</p> <p>The Constitution was described in Connecticut as a compact that preserved state power and recognized the states as the building blocks of the republic. Wolcott reiterated this concept by assuring disbelievers that the general government secures the rights “of the several states.” Law joined this sentiment, announcing that the state governments “will not be endangered by the powers vested by this constitution in the general government.” Because few powers were divested, Law believed that the general government “will not have the disposition to encroach upon the states.”</p> <p>On one of the final days of the convention, Ellsworth declared that in times of disagreement with the general government, the states could forcibly reject repugnant law through their own independent means. “If the United States and the individual states will quarrel, if they want to fight,” Ellsworth said, “they may do it, and no frame of government can possibly prevent it.”</p> <p>Sherman and Ellsworth’s joint letter to the governor of Connecticut also highlighted one of the focal points of their energies at the Philadelphia Convention: the text in Article I, Section 10 that forbid states to emit bills of credit, noting that the clause was added in Philadelphia in order to “secure the rights of the particular states, and the liberties and properties of the citizens.” This prohibition, which Sherman arduously fought for, was seen as a crucial political victory.</p> <p>In Connecticut, ratification was fairly decisive. Some writings within the state projected hostility toward the Constitution, but such tracts were notably less influential compared to those in the other states. Many of the contentious issues were not debated in Hartford, as the floor was dominated by supporters of the document.</p> <p>The most important members of the assembly in favor of the document, such as Sherman and Ellsworth, were at the Philadelphia Convention and contributed greatly by crafting much of its text. The active roles these men played in the proceedings there undoubtedly helped secure the document’s acceptance. In proceedings that lasted only five days, Connecticut adopted the Constitution by a margin of 120 to 48.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Constitution State Ratifying Conventions Connecticut Ratification Today in History Dave Benner West Virginia Bill Would Block Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-block-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:791299de-1dc0-6456-0925-79a1e29e87c4 Thu, 09 Jan 2020 19:20:35 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-block-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/" title="West Virginia Bill Would Block Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-west-virginia-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-west-virginia-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-west-virginia-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-west-virginia-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-west-virginia-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Jan. 9, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the West Virginia House would prohibit unconstitutional foreign combat deployments of the state’s national guard troops, effectively restoring the Founders’ framework for state-federal balance on the Guard.Del. Pat McGeehan (R-Hancock), along with a bipartisan coalition of three Republicans and three Democrats, introduced House Bill 2732 [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/west-virginia-bill-block-unconstitutional-national-guard-deployments/" title="West Virginia Bill Would Block Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-west-virginia-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-west-virginia-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-west-virginia-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-west-virginia-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/defend-the-guard-west-virginia-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>CHARLESTON</strong>, W.Va. (Jan. 9, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the West Virginia House would prohibit unconstitutional foreign combat deployments of the state’s national guard troops, effectively restoring the Founders’ framework for state-federal balance on the Guard.<span id="more-34029"></span>Del. Pat McGeehan (R-Hancock), along with a bipartisan coalition of three Republicans and three Democrats, introduced House Bill 2732 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/bill/HB2732/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB2732</a>) on Jan. 8. McGeehan served as an Air Force intelligence officer and did tours in Afghanistan and the Middle East.</p> <p>The legislation would prohibit the deployment of West Virginia Guard troops in “active duty combat” unless there is a declaration of war from Congress, as required by the Constitution. It reads, in part:</p> <blockquote><p><em>The West Virginia National Guard and any member thereof shall not be released from the state into active duty combat unless the United States Congress has passed an official declaration of war or has taken an official action pursuant to Article I, § 8, Clause 15 of the United States Constitution to explicitly call forth the West Virginia National Guard</em></p></blockquote> <p>McGeehan said passage of HB2732 would send an unmistakable message to Congress.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;It would show the country, the citizens, the people who are actually being represented by the knuckleheads in Washington D.C., are tired of this war and we’re asking them to do something about it. Reclaim your dang authority. Do your job before you send our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our husbands, fathers and mothers, to go fight in a war that has no national interest – no national security threat.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>IN PRACTICE</strong></p> <p>Guard troops have played significant roles in all modern overseas conflicts, with over 650,000 deployed since 2001. <em>Military.com</em> <a href="https://www.military.com/national-guard-birthday/national-guard-service-in-the-war-on-terror.html">reports</a> that “Guard and Reserve units made up about 45 percent of the total force sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and received about 18.4 percent of the casualties.” More specifically, West Virginia National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo and elsewhere.</p> <p>Since none of these missions have been accompanied by a Constitutional declaration of war, the Defend the Guard Act would have prohibited those deployments. Such declarations have only happened five times in U.S. history, with the last being at the onset of World War II.</p> <p><b>BACKGROUND</b></p> <p>Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 make up the “militia clauses” of the Constitution. Clause 16 authorizes Congress to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.” In the Dick Act of 1903, Congress organized the militia into today’s National Guard, limiting the part of the militia that could be called into federal service rather than the “entire body of people,” which makes up the totality of the “militia.” Thus, today’s National Guard is governed by the “militia clauses” of the Constitution, and this view is <a href="https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&amp;did=439888">confirmed by the National Guard</a> itself.</p> <p>Clause 15 delegates to the Congress the power to provide for “calling forth the militia” in three situations only: 1) to execute the laws of the union, 2) to suppress insurrections, and 3) to repel invasions.</p> <p>During state ratifying conventions, proponents of the Constitution, including James Madison and Edmund Randolph, repeatedly assured the people that this power to call forth the militia into federal service would be limited to those very specific situations, and not for general purposes, like helping victims of a disease outbreak or engaging in “kinetic military actions.”</p> <p><b>RETURNING TO THE CONSTITUTION</b></p> <p>It is this limited Constitutional structure that advocates of the Defend the Guard Act seek to restore. That is, use of the Guard for the three expressly-delegated purposes in the Constitution, and at other times to remain where the Guard belongs, at home, supporting and protecting their home state.</p> <p>McGeehan said the states have a powerful opportunity to force a return to the proper Constitutional operation of <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/09/under-the-constitution-limited-strikes-qualify-as-war/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">war powers</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>“For decades, the power of war has long been abused by this supreme executive, and unfortunately our men and women in uniform have been sent off into harm’s way over and over,” he said. “If the U.S. Congress is unwilling to reclaim its constitutional obligation, then the states themselves must act to correct the erosion of constitutional law.”</p></blockquote> <p>While getting this bill passed isn’t going to be easy, it certainly is, as Daniel Webster once noted, one of the reasons state governments even exist.” In 1814 speech on the floor of Congress, Webster urged similar actions to the West Virginia Defend the Guard Act. He said:</p> <blockquote><p> “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB2732 has been assigned to the<a href="http://www.wvlegislature.gov/committees/house/HouseCommittee.cfm?Chart=va" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> House Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security Committee</a>. It will need to pass by a majority vote in each before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> State Bills War HB2732 Militia National Guard War Powers West Virginia Mike Maharrey Vermont Bill Would Legalize Commercial Marijuana Sales Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/vermont-bill-would-legalize-commercial-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:a75fdf97-86ac-7722-7359-b08b9aecb872 Thu, 09 Jan 2020 17:02:16 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/vermont-bill-would-legalize-commercial-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/" title="Vermont Bill Would Legalize Commercial Marijuana Sales Despite Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/vermont-capitol-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/vermont-capitol-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/vermont-capitol-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/vermont-capitol-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/vermont-capitol-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />MONTPELIER, Vt. (Jan. 9, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Vermont Senate would create a licensing and regulatory structure for commercial marijuana cultivation and sales despite federal prohibition. Sen. John Rodgers (D-Glover) introduced Senate Bill 214 (SB214) on Jan. 7. The legislation would establish policies and procedures for growing, processing, testing, and marketing marijuana [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/vermont-bill-would-legalize-commercial-marijuana-sales-despite-federal-prohibition/" title="Vermont Bill Would Legalize Commercial Marijuana Sales Despite Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/vermont-capitol-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/vermont-capitol-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/vermont-capitol-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/vermont-capitol-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/vermont-capitol-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><b>MONTPELIER</b>, Vt. (Jan. 9, 2020) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Vermont Senate would create a licensing and regulatory structure for commercial marijuana cultivation and sales despite federal prohibition.<span id="more-34021"></span></p> <p>Sen. John Rodgers (D-Glover) introduced Senate Bill 214 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/VT/bill/S0214/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SB214</a>) on Jan. 7. The legislation would establish policies and procedures for growing, processing, testing, and marketing marijuana and marijuana products. According to the bill&#8217;s statement of purpose, the enactment of SB214 would allow &#8220;farmers and other businesses in the Vermont agricultural industry can take advantage of this market opportunity.&#8221;</p> <p><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">Vermont legalized the possession and home cultivation of marijuana</a> by adults over 21 last year, but the law does not allow commercial production or distribution of cannabis for the recreational market. The passage of SB214 would take the next step forward and treat marijuana similar to alcohol in the state with a tax, license and regulatory structure.</p> <p>The legislation will have a tough road to enactment. Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R) has expressed reservations about commercial marijuana sales.  In a <a href="http://governor.vermont.gov/press-release/governor-phil-scott-signs-h-511">message</a> to the General Assembly, he expressed “mixed emotions” about signing the bill. “I personally believe that what adults do behind closed doors and on private property is their choice, so long as it does not negatively impact the health and safety of others, especially children,” he said. But he added that he still has “reservations about a commercial system which depends on profit motive and market-driven demand for its growth.”</p> <p>The debate over commercial marijuana cultivation and sales continues despite ongoing federal prohibition.</p> <p><b>Step-By-Step</b></p> <p>Vermont legalized medical marijuana back in 2004. Decriminalization of recreational marijuana last year removed another layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of cannabis, and passage of SB214 would take yet another step forward. Despite this, federal prohibition remains on the books.</p> <p>Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>Stripping away state laws criminalizing cannabis 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 up to 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly annual budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution either. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Vermont joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.</p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit in 2019</a>.</p> <p>With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.</p> <p>The push to legalize commercial marijuana sales in Vermont underscores another important strategic reality. Once a state legalizes marijuana – even if only in a very limited way – it tends to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand expands. That creates pressure to further relax state law. These new laws represent a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB214 was referred to the <a href="https://legislature.vermont.gov/committee/detail/2020/22" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Senate Committee on Agriculture</a> where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Drug War State Bills cannabis Marijuana SB214 Vermont Mike Maharrey The Truth About the Anti-Federalists https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/the-truth-about-the-anti-federalists/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:40f3b911-018f-a7c5-f191-610a468a1247 Thu, 09 Jan 2020 12:24:38 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/the-truth-about-the-anti-federalists/" title="The Truth About the Anti-Federalists" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-768x401.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-1024x535.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-1080x564.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-980x512.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-480x251.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />When we talk about the adoption of the Constitution, we generally focus on the federalists &#8211; those who supported ratification. After all, the Constitution was ratified based on the arguments and promises they made. But the opponents of ratification &#8211; the anti-federalists &#8211; provide valuable insights as well. As explained in this episode of the [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/the-truth-about-the-anti-federalists/" title="The Truth About the Anti-Federalists" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-768x401.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-1024x535.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-1080x564.png 1080w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-980x512.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-480x251.png 480w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2017/08/truth-dictionary-AdobeStock_5745194-1200-e1544545782990-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>When we talk about the adoption of the Constitution, we generally focus on the federalists &#8211; those who supported ratification. After all, the Constitution was ratified based on the arguments and promises they made. But the opponents of ratification &#8211; the anti-federalists &#8211; provide valuable insights as well.<span id="more-34014"></span></p> <p>As explained in this episode of the Truth Quest podcast, these oft-ignored founders warned about the inevitable growth in size, scope and power of the federal government &#8211; especially the judiciary &#8211; all at the expense of the individual states.</p> <p>Evidence of their accurate predictions can be seen virtually every day in the national news.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video Founding Fathers Other Voices anti-federalists Constitution federalists Ratification Shawn Brodof Tenth Amendment Center Blog 21:57 When we talk about the adoption of the Constitution, we generally focus on the federalists – those who supported ratification. After all, the Constitution was ratified based on the arguments and promises they made. When we talk about the adoption of the Constitution, we generally focus on the federalists – those who supported ratification. After all, the Constitution was ratified based on the arguments and promises they made. But the opponents of ratification – the anti-federalists – provide valuable insights as well. As explained in this episode of the […] Don’t Trust Government https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/08/dont-trust-government/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:014d0e4a-018e-3c1e-c5b1-64d24cd9af19 Thu, 09 Jan 2020 01:07:28 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/08/dont-trust-government/" title="Don&#8217;t Trust Government" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/dont-trust-government-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/dont-trust-government-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/dont-trust-government-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/dont-trust-government-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/dont-trust-government-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Don’t trust government. And don’t trust politicians. That can&#8217;t be repeated often enough. Unfortunately, it seems that most people trust politicians &#8211; depending on the issue or depending on the political party they happen to be a part of. This never has good results in the long run. Patrick Henry put it this way in [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/08/dont-trust-government/" title="Don&#8217;t Trust Government" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/dont-trust-government-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/dont-trust-government-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/dont-trust-government-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/dont-trust-government-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/dont-trust-government-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Don’t trust government. And don’t trust politicians.</p> <p>That can&#8217;t be repeated often enough.</p> <p>Unfortunately, it seems that most people trust politicians &#8211; depending on the issue or depending on the political party they happen to be a part of.</p> <p>This never has good results in the long run.</p> <p>Patrick Henry put it this way in the Virginia ratifying convention:</p> <p>“Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.”</p> <p>In short &#8211; every time people trust political leaders to do the right thing &#8211; the long-term result is a loss of liberty.</p> <p>But it wasn’t just Henry. On the other end of the spectrum, John Adams gave almost the same warning in 1772:</p> <p>“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”</p> <p>We should all know that power corrupts. And, as the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.</p> <p>Samuel Adams knew this well when he warned us:</p> <p>“Power is intoxicating; and Men legally vested with it, too often discover a Disposition to make an ill Use of it and an Unwillingness to part with it.”</p> <p>This is pretty much the same warning from John Dickinson, the “Penman of the Revolution,” who wrote:</p> <p>“All artful rulers, who strive to extend their power beyond its just limits, endeavor to give their attempts as much semblance of legality as possible.”</p> <p>These are all timeless truths.</p> <p>No one with power should be trusted. Not most. Not some. No one. And we should also recognize that those with power will try to make all kinds of arguments to make their unconstitutional acts look legal.</p> <p>Living in the US of A &#8211; the largest government in the history of the world &#8211; we would do well to treat every politician with this kind of jealous eye.</p> <p>As Thomas Jefferson put it in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:</p> <p>“Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go”</p> <p>That’s why it’s so important for us to continue our stand &#8211; The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.</p> <p>Thank you so much for being here. We are so incredibly grateful for your support &#8211; large or small &#8211; it all helps us make a difference:<br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/"><b>https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</b></a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Founding Fathers founders john adams John Dickinson Patrick Henry Samuel Adams thomas jefferson Trust Michael Boldin Thomas Jefferson vs the Barbary Pirates https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/thomas-jefferson-vs-the-barbary-pirates/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:aa98e897-bb97-3620-d8bd-198a86e022b9 Wed, 08 Jan 2020 18:39:26 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/thomas-jefferson-vs-the-barbary-pirates/" title="Thomas Jefferson vs the Barbary Pirates" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-010820-b.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-010820-b.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-010820-b-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-010820-b-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-010820-b-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Many people who support unconstitutional executive war powers like to claim that Thomas Jefferson took the same approach in the early 1800s against the Barbary pirates. But, beyond knowing there was a conflict, they know little about the facts &#8211; and Jefferson&#8217;s approach, which supports a very restricted executive &#8211; as required by the Constitution. [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/thomas-jefferson-vs-the-barbary-pirates/" title="Thomas Jefferson vs the Barbary Pirates" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-010820-b.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-010820-b.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-010820-b-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-010820-b-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-010820-b-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Many people who support unconstitutional executive war powers like to claim that Thomas Jefferson took the same approach in the early 1800s against the Barbary pirates. But, beyond knowing there was a conflict, they know little about the facts &#8211; and Jefferson&#8217;s approach, which supports a very restricted executive &#8211; as required by the Constitution.</p> <p>Path to Liberty. Wednesday January 8, 2020<span id="more-34022"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/1GsCdbBZy-U?start=58" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>PODCAST VERSION</strong></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&amp;isi=691797987&amp;ius=googleplaymusic&amp;apn=com.google.android.music&amp;link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ic7vaa26zzqtt2zmxovxwkxktem?t%3DPath_to_Liberty%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Play</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/first-barbary-war" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Monticello: First Barbary War</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/05/24/jefferson-and-the-barbary-pirates/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/04/09/the-constitution-and-war-powers-not-a-presidential-dictatorship/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Constitution and War Powers: Not a Presidential Dictatorship</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Wiki: First Barbary War</a></p> <p><a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/bar1805t.asp" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Treaty of Peace and Amity, Signed at Tripoli June 4, 1805</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/56e962ca-e65c-4465-945a-4ff6fc4e15a1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/jMA7Mj8K5ATn/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittubers.com/post/e6636faf-6470-4326-a487-f8086e4973d9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bittubers</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/532876567" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1ypJdBdvpnNKW" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+ih8bunPWR" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video History Path to Liberty Thomas Jefferson War Powers Barbary Pirates First Barbary War thomas jefferson Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 34:32 Many people who support unconstitutional executive war powers like to claim that Thomas Jefferson took the same approach in the early 1800s against the Barbary pirates. But, beyond knowing there was a conflict, Many people who support unconstitutional executive war powers like to claim that Thomas Jefferson took the same approach in the early 1800s against the Barbary pirates. But, beyond knowing there was a conflict, they know little about the facts – and Jefferson’s approach, which supports a very restricted executive – as required by the Constitution. […] This Means War! https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/this-means-war/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:0de62264-81a7-9cab-1003-96856ac5c46b Wed, 08 Jan 2020 17:22:43 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/this-means-war/" title="This Means War!" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />If you care about liberty, you'd better start drawing some constitutional lines in the sand. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/this-means-war/" title="This Means War!" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/10/danger-warning-1200-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>If you&#8217;ve been following the news at all, you know Pres. Trump ordered an airstrike that killed a prominent Iranian general in Iraq. This followed a fracas at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. When you boil it all down, the president of the U.S. ordered the execution of a foreign general in another foreign country.<span id="more-34005"></span></p> <p>Some people have bristled at me calling it an &#8220;execution.&#8221; They say the general is an enemy of the U.S. and we are at war. Taking out an enemy&#8217;s command structure isn&#8217;t an execution per se. It&#8217;s a legitimate military action in a time of war.</p> <p>There is a big problem with this reasoning. The U.S. is not at war with Iran &#8211; at least not in a legal or constitutional sense. Therefore, the president had no authority to authorize such an action.</p> <p>The Constitution carefully separated war powers. Congress declares war. The president executes the will of the legislature. As George Washington insisted:</p> <p>&#8220;<em>The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.&#8221;</em></p> <p>Notice exactly what Washington said &#8212; <strong>no offensive expedition of importance</strong>. I think offing a foreign general probably qualifies as an &#8220;expedition of importance.&#8221;</p> <p>The founders vested the power of declaring war in the legislature for a reason. They didn&#8217;t want a single individual having the power to drag America into war. As James Madison astutely noted:</p> <p><em>“The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.”</em></p> <p>I talk more about war powers in the <a href="https://michaelmaharrey.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=4ac905c16aee40ee392f74a8f&amp;id=8904f80729&amp;e=592d86703b" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">most recent episode of the Thoughts from Maharrey Head podcast</a>. There are also some links on the show notes page to articles you can read for even more detail.</p> <p>Now, you might be thinking, &#8216;Why does it matter?&#8217;  After all, when it comes to our national security, we need bold decision-making.</p> <p>Well, I&#8217;ll tell you why.</p> <p>If the president can do whatever he wants when it comes to war and peace, regardless of what the Constitution says, he can do whatever he wants when it comes to your guns, your healthcare and your economic well-being &#8212; regardless of what the Constitution says.</p> <p>If you care about liberty, you&#8217;d better start drawing some constitutional lines in the sand.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Current Events War Iran Iraq war War Powers Mike Maharrey The Controversy about the ERA Amendment Process https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/the-controversy-about-the-era-amendment-process/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:fcfc32e9-d4a3-4764-09ed-5707485a635c Tue, 07 Jan 2020 21:19:10 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/the-controversy-about-the-era-amendment-process/" title="The Controversy about the ERA Amendment Process" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293-768x401.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293-1024x535.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293-1080x564.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />It seems likely that another constitutional controversy will soon emerge. In 2020, the Virginia Legislature seems poised to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which Congress first proposed nearly a half century ago. Under one way of counting, Virginia’s approval would be the 38th state ratification for the ERA, giving it the requisite three quarters of [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/the-controversy-about-the-era-amendment-process/" title="The Controversy about the ERA Amendment Process" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293-768x401.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293-1024x535.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293-1080x564.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2016/12/bigstock-Us-Constitution-33202769-1200-e1548181826293-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>It seems likely that another constitutional controversy will soon emerge. In 2020, the Virginia Legislature seems poised to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which Congress first proposed nearly a half century ago. Under one way of counting, Virginia’s approval would be the 38th state ratification for the ERA, giving it the requisite three quarters of the states needed for ratification. Thus, it might seem like the ERA is about to become law. In my view, however, even if Virginia votes to ratify, it will not bring the ERA into effect.</p> <p>The story of the ERA is a long and complicated one, but on one level it is simple. Once the ERA was initially unable to secure ratification, advocates of the Amendment have engaged in one questionable act after another in an effort to enact it. I say this despite my support of at least some versions of an equal rights amendment—specifically, versions that have a relatively determinate meaning.</p> <p>In 1972, Congress <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg1523.pdf">proposed</a> the ERA by the required two thirds of each house of Congress. The resolution proposing the amendment provided:</p> <blockquote><p><em>Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled</em> (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States <em>within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress</em>:</p> <p>ARTICLE —</p> <p>SEC 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.</p> <p>SEC. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.</p> <p>SEC. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.</p> <p>(second italics added).</p></blockquote> <p>What is peculiar about this resolution is that the seven-year limitation was contained in the resolution proposing the amendment, but not in the text of the amendment itself. While many constitutional amendments, such as the 20th, 21st, and 22nd have also had seven-year limitations, those limitations were placed in the text of the amendments.</p> <p>Unfortunately for the ERA, it did not receive the required 38 state ratification by the end of he seven year limitation in 1979. As the deadline was about to run, Congress passed by a simple majority of each house (and then signed by the President), a provision attempting to extend the deadline until 1982. But no additional states ratified the amendment prior to the 1982 deadline.</p> <p>Although the amendment seemed to be dead, additional states began to ratify the amendment in 2017. Illinois and Nevada have now passed ratifications. If Virginia (or another state) passes a ratification next year, many ERA proponents are likely to argue that the Amendment has been ratified.</p> <p>But the argument for this conclusion is very weak. First, even if these three ratifications had occurred during the 1979-1982 period when Congress had passed an extension by statute, they would not be valid. One cannot use a statute to modify a proposed constitutional amendment. A proposed constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote of both houses. A statute requires only a majority vote of both houses.</p> <p>Moreover, even if Congress had passed the extension with two-thirds of each house, that would be insufficient. The ratifications that had occurred prior to the extension were to a proposed amendment that had a 7-year limitation. One cannot count those ratifications for a proposed amendment with in effect a 10-year limitation, since we don’t know that the states that had ratified the amendment with the 7-year limitation would have ratified an amendment with a 10-year limitation. This (hypothetical) amendment with a 10-year limitation that was passed by two thirds of each house would only be ratified if 38 states approved it.</p> <p>This discussion assumes that the ratifications beginning in 2017 were passed during a period for which Congress extended the ratification window. But Congress has not extended the ratification window either by statute or by proposed amendment since 1982. So what possible argument is there for counting the three new ratifications and adding them to the prior ones?</p> <p>The best arguments appear to be that the time limitation in the original ERA was not binding and therefore can be ignored. One possible reason is that the ERA time limitation was not in the amendment itself, but only in the resolution proposing it. But this argument is open to an objection. The Constitution merely states that Congress should propose an amendment and it is not clear why limitations in the resolution proposing the amendment should not be considered as part of Congress’s proposal. Still, this argument against enforcing the time limitation cannot be rejected out of hand.</p> <p>Another possible reason why the time limitation might not be binding, even if it were in the constitutional text, is the argument that the Constitution does not allow Congress to set a time limit. Under this view, Congress’s only role in the amendment process is to propose an amendment and then to determine whether it is ratified by state conventions or state legislatures. I have some sympathy for this argument. But again there are problems. First, many constitutional amendments have included time limitations in the text and therefore there is a strong precedent for concluding they are valid. Second, even if Congress has no authority to do anything other than propose the amendment and specify whether state conventions or state legislatures should make the ratification decision, Congress placed the time limitation in its proposal, and it certainly has the power to make proposals. So one must decide whether the time limitation was a legitimate part of the proposal.</p> <p>But let’s imagine that we accept the argument for the continuing life of the proposed ERA on these issues and conclude that Congress could not—in the text or the resolution—place time limits on the amendment. What would be the consequence of this conclusion? It would indicate that the time limitation was unconstitutional. If so, one might conclude that the proposed ERA itself is unconstitutional and therefore of no force or validity. That would hardly help the prospects of the ERA.</p> <p>The response to this conclusion would presumably be that it is only the time limitation that is unconstitutional. Therefore, that portion of the proposal is of no effect, but the remainder of it is. This amounts to a severability argument—the unconstitutional portion of the proposal can be severed from the remainder, leaving it of full force and effect.</p> <p>The problem here is that it is extremely questionable that the unconstitutional portion is severable. Applying severability to constitutional provisions (as opposed to statutes) is novel and questionable. In addition, there is no severability clause. Finally, there is a strong argument that the provision is not severable, because the Congress might not have voted for it without the unconstitutional portion. Members of Congress might have sought a genuine consensus of the country and not one that was only secured over a half century.</p> <p>There is also another severability problem at the state level. When states ratified the Amendment prior to 1979, they too might have sought a genuine consensus within a seven-year period. Thus, they might have rejected an amendment with an unlimited ratification period.</p> <p>Finally, there is one last problem with concluding that only one more state is needed to ratify the ERA. Since five states (Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota) have rescinded their ratifications, if those rescissions are operative, then an additional five states will be needed for ratification. It is not clear that these recissions are valid, but my tentative view is that they are valid on the <a href="https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7530&amp;context=ylj">ground</a> that recissions are valid so long as they are passed before the requisite three quarters of the states are reached.</p> <p>Overall, there are numerous problems with the claim that only one more state is needed for the ERA. In my view, there is much to be said for an equal rights amendment that has a determinate meaning and even more to be said for effecting constitutional change by constitutional amendment rather than judicial updating. But declaring the original ERA ratified when one more state approves it might create a constitutional crisis and would certainly damage the credibility of the Constitution.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Article V Current Events Equal Rights Amendment ERA Virginia Michael D. Ramsey America Ranks as Fourth-Worst Abuser of Biometric Privacy in the World https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/07/america-ranks-as-fourth-worst-abuser-of-biometric-privacy-in-the-world/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:5a59d62c-09c6-0ac1-f3b2-2aaa404f2750 Tue, 07 Jan 2020 16:10:04 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/07/america-ranks-as-fourth-worst-abuser-of-biometric-privacy-in-the-world/" title="America Ranks as Fourth-Worst Abuser of Biometric Privacy in the World" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Iris-Scan-Security-5734740-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Iris-Scan-Security-5734740-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Iris-Scan-Security-5734740-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Iris-Scan-Security-5734740-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Iris-Scan-Security-5734740-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Does anyone really believe America is still the land of the free? Since 9/11, DHS, the FBI, the CIA, and countless other alphabet soup agencies have turned the United States into a public surveillance monstrosity. In 19 years, one terrorist attack has done what no one else could have dreamed of: turn America&#8217;s freedoms into [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/07/america-ranks-as-fourth-worst-abuser-of-biometric-privacy-in-the-world/" title="America Ranks as Fourth-Worst Abuser of Biometric Privacy in the World" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Iris-Scan-Security-5734740-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Iris-Scan-Security-5734740-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Iris-Scan-Security-5734740-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Iris-Scan-Security-5734740-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Iris-Scan-Security-5734740-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Does anyone really believe America is still the land of the free?</p> <p>Since 9/11, DHS, the FBI, the CIA, and countless other alphabet soup agencies have turned the United States into a public surveillance monstrosity. In 19 years, one terrorist attack has done what no one else could have dreamed of: turn America&#8217;s freedoms into a distant memory.</p> <p>Abusing citizen&#8217;s rights and privacy used to be the hallmark of dictatorships and police states like the CCCP or North Korea.</p> <p>A recent <a href="https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/biometric-data-study/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study</a> conducted by Comparitech, rated 50 countries from best to worst at protecting citizen&#8217;s biometric data. The study found that America is one of the world&#8217;s worst abusers of citizen&#8217;s biometric privacy.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;While China topping the list perhaps doesn’t come as too much of a surprise, residents of (and travelers to) other countries may be surprised and concerned at the extent of biometric information that is being collected on them and what is happening to it afterward.&#8221;</i></p></blockquote> <p>This really should not come as a surprise, because earlier this year Comparitech <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2019/08/american-and-chinese-cities-lead-world.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">revealed</a> that American and Chinese cities lead the world in spying on their citizens. Last week, I wrote an article explaining how 2019 would go down as the year that <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2019/12/2019-facial-recognition-and-corporate.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">facial recognition and corporate surveillance</a> became commonplace in America.</p> <p>Comparitech&#8217;s recent study on biometric privacy compared how 50 countries collect and use data to identify innocent people:</p> <ul> <li>Many countries collect travelers’ biometric data, often through visas or biometric checks at airports</li> <li>Every country we studied is using biometrics for bank accounts, e.g. fingerprints to access online app data and/or to confirm identities within the banks themselves</li> <li>Despite many countries recognizing biometric data as sensitive, increased biometric use is widely accepted</li> <li>Facial recognition CCTV is being implemented in a large number of countries, or at least being tested</li> <li>EU countries scored better overall than non-EU countries due to GDPR regulations protecting the use of biometrics in the workplace (to some extent)</li> </ul> <p><img class="size-full wp-image-34016 aligncenter" src="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/usa.png" alt="" width="616" height="230" /></p> <p>Comparitech warns, &#8220;these 5 countries show a concerning lack of regard for the privacy of people’s biometric data.&#8221; That&#8217;s right, the &#8220;land of the free&#8221; has become the land of the surveilled and tracked.</p> <p>How can that be you ask?</p> <p>According to Comparitech, the United States scores highly in most areas due to:</p> <ul> <li>Having biometrics in passports, ID cards, and bank accounts.</li> <li>Having a biometric voting system (optical scan equipment used in a large number of states).</li> <li>Not having a specific law to protect citizens’ biometrics. While there is a handful of state laws that protect state residents’ biometrics (as can be seen in our state privacy study), this does leave many US citizens’ biometrics exposed as there is no federal law in place.</li> <li>Implementing the widespread use of facial recognition cameras with law enforcement pushing for further use in the identification of criminals. For example, the FBI and ICE have recently been criticized due to their use of facial recognition technology to scan drivers’ license photos without gaining the citizens’ consent beforehand. Equally, some city-level bans have been put in place with San Francisco (CA), Oakland (CA), Berkeley (CA), and Somerville (MA) banning government use of facial recognition technology.</li> <li>The growing use of biometrics in the workplace. Many companies use employees’ biometrics for certain actions, e.g. using a fingerprint to gain access to a work computer. Again, some state laws offer a little more protection but this still leaves many employees’ biometrics exposed.</li> <li>Fingerprints being required for most American visas and everyone’s fingerprints being collected upon entry to the country.</li> </ul> <p>Curiously, Comparitech failed to elaborate on DHS&#8217;s national <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/real-id" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Real-ID program</a> which forces everyone to provide biometric information to drive or <a href="https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/real-id-us-travel-requirements/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">fly in America</a>. If they had included Real-ID in their study it is my opinion that America would be second only to China in abusing citizen&#8217;s biometric privacy.</p> <p>The other countries listed in the top ten worst abusers of citizens biometric privacy rights, India, South Africa, Brazil, Nigeria, and Argentina are all countries one might expect to be in or near the top but a neighbor to America&#8217;s north is also one of the worst, Canada.</p> <p>As I mentioned earlier, the Western world has used 9/11 as an excuse to abuse citizen&#8217;s privacy rights and sadly, Canada is no exception.</p> <p>That countries like Canada and the United States, once bastion&#8217;s of a free society, are now near mirror-images of surveillance states, like <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/china-surveillance/552203/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">China</a>, <a href="https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/penang-facial-recognition-identify-criminals-cctv-11080092" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Malaysia</a>, <a href="https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/PAKISTAN%20REPORT%20HIGH%20RES%2020150721_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pakistan</a>, <a href="https://qz.com/india/1728927/indias-among-the-worlds-top-three-surveillance-states/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">India</a>, the <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/03/20/rodrigo-duterte-ibm-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Philippines</a> and <a href="https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/2163365/taiwan-becoming-surveillance-state-privacy-advocates-sound-alarm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Taiwan</a> is horrifying.</p> <p>The Carnegie Endowment For Peace&#8217;s, <a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/09/17/global-expansion-of-ai-surveillance-pub-79847" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">AI Global Surveillance (AIGS) Index</a> warned, that AI surveillance is being used by 176 countries to track individuals.</p> <blockquote><p> &#8220;As the spread of AI surveillance continues unabated. Its use by repressive regimes to engineer crackdowns against targeted populations has already sounded alarm bells.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>And hopefully, that is what you will take away from this story: our government increasingly uses biometrics and AI surveillance to track everyone.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Surveillance biometric data facial recognition fourth-amendment Privacy jprivate Virginia Bill Would Reform Asset Forfeiture Law by Requiring Criminal Conviction, Federal Loophole Would Remain https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/virginia-bill-would-reform-asset-forfeiture-law-by-requiring-criminal-conviction-federal-loophole-would-remain/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ace225fe-0541-58e9-f40b-098b0f77ed8f Tue, 07 Jan 2020 15:13:12 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/virginia-bill-would-reform-asset-forfeiture-law-by-requiring-criminal-conviction-federal-loophole-would-remain/" title="Virginia Bill Would Reform Asset Forfeiture Law by Requiring Criminal Conviction, Federal Loophole Would Remain" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />RICHMOND, Va. (Jan. 7, 2020) &#8211; A bill prefiled in the Virginia House would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction in most cases. But the legislation leaves a loophole in place allowing police to circumvent stricter state laws by passing cases off to the feds. Delegate [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/virginia-bill-would-reform-asset-forfeiture-law-by-requiring-criminal-conviction-federal-loophole-would-remain/" title="Virginia Bill Would Reform Asset Forfeiture Law by Requiring Criminal Conviction, Federal Loophole Would Remain" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/02/police-forfeiture-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>RICHMOND</strong>, Va. (Jan. 7, 2020) &#8211; A bill prefiled in the Virginia House would reform asset forfeiture laws to prohibit the state from taking property without a criminal conviction in most cases. But the legislation leaves a loophole in place allowing police to circumvent stricter state laws by passing cases off to the feds.<span id="more-34007"></span></p> <p>Delegate Nicholas J. Freitas (R-Culpeper) filed House Bill 225 (<a href="http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+HB225" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB225</a>) on Dec. 28 for introduction in the 2020 legislative session. The legislation would require that any action for the forfeiture of property used in connection with the commission of a crime could not proceed until the person whose property is the subject of the forfeiture action has been found guilty of the crime authorizing the forfeiture.</p> <p>According to the Institute for Justice, <a href="http://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-virginia/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Virginia has some of the worst asset forfeiture laws</a> in the country.</p> <blockquote><p>“In order to forfeit property in Virginia, the government need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that property is related to criminal activity. Innocent owners also bear the burden of proving that they had nothing to do with the alleged criminal activity in which their property has been implicated. Worst of all, Virginia law provides a tempting incentive to seize property as it allows law enforcement to retain 100 percent of forfeiture proceeds: Participating agencies keep 90 percent of the bounty, while the balance goes to the state’s Department of Criminal Justice Services.”</p></blockquote> <p>During the last legislative session, Virginia took the first step toward reforming its asset forfeiture laws by <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/new-laws-in-kansas-and-virginia-require-strict-asset-forfeiture-reporting-an-important-step-forward/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">instituting reporting requirements</a>.</p> <p>While passage of HB225 would significantly reform Virginia&#8217;s asset forfeiture laws, it fails to address a loophole that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws in a vast majority of situations. This is particularly important in light of a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/30/states-can-thwart-new-doj-asset-forfeiture-policy/">2017 policy directive issued by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> for the Department of Justice (DOJ).</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/12/federal-asset-forfeiture-program-helps-local-police-steal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Equitable Sharing</a>” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.</p> <p>Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state closed the loophole</a> in 2016.</p> <p>The Virginia legislature should amend the current legislation with language to close the loophole and opt the state out of equitable sharing.</p> <blockquote> <div>A local, county or state law enforcement agency shall not refer, transfer or otherwise relinquish possession of property seized under state law to a federal agency by way of adoption of the seized property or other means by the federal agency for the purpose of the property’s forfeiture under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Public Law 91 513-Oct. 27, 1970.under the federal Controlled Substances Act or other federal law.</div> <div></div> <div>In a case in which the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized has a value of $50,000 or less, excluding the value of contraband, a local, county or state law enforcement agency or participant in a joint task force or other multijurisdictional collaboration with the federal government (agency) shall transfer responsibility for the seized property to the state prosecuting authority for forfeiture under state law.</div> <div></div> <div>If the federal government prohibits the transfer of seized property and currency to the state prosecuting authority as required by paragraph (1) and instead requires the property be transferred to the federal government for forfeiture under federal law, the agency is prohibited from accepting payment of any kind or distribution of forfeiture proceeds from the federal government.</div> </blockquote> <p>Very few cases exceed the $50,000 threshold.</p> <p>As the Tenth Amendment Center <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/09/feds-meddling-in-attempt-to-undermine-state-asset-forfeiture-reform/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">previously reported</a> the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.</p> <p>Why?</p> <p>We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB225 will be officially introduced and referred to a committee when the Virginia legislature convenes Jan. 8.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing HB225 Policing for Profit Virginia Mike Maharrey War Powers Revisited https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/war-powers-revisited/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:1000973b-6c24-0123-8aaa-82d7369ed1b4 Tue, 07 Jan 2020 11:13:12 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/war-powers-revisited/" title="War Powers Revisited" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-768x401.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-1024x535.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-1080x564.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Pres. Trump unilaterally ordered the execution of an Iranian general. Did he have the constitutional authority to take this action? The short answer is no. In this episode of Thoughts from Maharrey Head, I explain why. More importantly, I explain why it matters. SHOW NOTES Iraq Government&#8217;s response to U.S. actions Constitution 101: War Powers [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/war-powers-revisited/" title="War Powers Revisited" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-768x401.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-1024x535.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-1080x564.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2018/04/bigstock-Military-Dogtags-on-American-F-21975860-1200-e1549579105242-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Pres. Trump unilaterally ordered the execution of an Iranian general. Did he have the constitutional authority to take this action?<span id="more-34004"></span></p> <p>The short answer is no. In this episode of Thoughts from Maharrey Head, I explain why. More importantly, I explain why it matters.</p> <p><iframe width="100%" height="166" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" allow="autoplay" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/738087004&#038;color=%23ff5500&#038;auto_play=false&#038;hide_related=false&#038;show_comments=true&#038;show_user=true&#038;show_reposts=false&#038;show_teaser=true"></iframe></p> <p>SHOW NOTES</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/IraqiGovt/status/1213040124474384384?fbclid=IwAR14drmgwUyvILaFf3Q2hYX_yUIFWSv0zKb0invBZLyE5Q19CF-_1d68cHA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Iraq Government&#8217;s response to U.S. actions</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.michaelmaharrey.com/constitution-101-war-powers-876/">Constitution 101: War Powers</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.michaelmaharrey.com/constitution-101-what-does-it-mean-to-declare-war-894/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Constitution 101: What Does It Mean to Declare War?</a></p> <p><a class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/09/under-the-constitution-limited-strikes-qualify-as-war/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Under the Constitution: Limited Strikes Qualify as War</a></p> <p><a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_2_2-3s15.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Letters of Helvidius &#8211; James Madison</a></p> <blockquote><p><em>In the general distribution of powers, we find that of declaring war expressly vested in the congress, where every other legislative power is declared to be vested; and without any other qualification than what is common to every other legislative act. The constitutional idea of this power would seem then clearly to be, that it is of a legislative and not an executive nature…</em></p> <p><em> Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws. </em></p></blockquote> <p><a href="https://www.michaelmaharrey.com/the-power-of-no/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Free E-Book: The Power of No!: The Historical and Constitutional Basis for State Nullification</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video Thoughts from Maharrey Head War Constitution Iran war Mike Maharrey Massachusetts Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Limit ALPR Use, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/massachusetts-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-limit-alpr-use-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d330cfc7-46c0-c38a-3462-c594b06e61d1 Mon, 06 Jan 2020 20:44:12 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/massachusetts-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-limit-alpr-use-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking-program/" title="Massachusetts Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Limit ALPR Use, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-768x403.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-1024x537.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-1080x566.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />BOSTON, Mass. (Jan. 6, 2020) – A Massachusetts legislative committee held a hearing last week on a bill that would put strict limitations on the use of automated license plate reader systems (ALPRs) by the state. Passage into law would also place significant roadblocks in the way of a federal program using states to help [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/massachusetts-committee-holds-hearing-on-bill-to-limit-alpr-use-help-block-national-license-plate-tracking-program/" title="Massachusetts Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Limit ALPR Use, Help Block National License Plate Tracking Program" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-768x403.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-1024x537.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-1080x566.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/05/alpr-general-053019-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>BOSTON</strong>, Mass. (Jan. 6, 2020) – A Massachusetts legislative committee held a hearing last week on a bill that would put strict limitations on the use of automated license plate reader systems (ALPRs) by the state. Passage into law would also place significant roadblocks in the way of a federal program using states to help track the location of millions of everyday people through pictures of their license plates.<span id="more-34006"></span></p> <p>A coalition of six Democrats introduced House Bill 3036 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MA/bill/H3036/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">H3036</a>) last January. The legislation would limit law enforcement use of ALPRs to specific, enumerated law enforcement functions. The proposed law would also put strict limitations on the retention and sharing of data gathered by license plate readers.</p> <p>Government agencies would have to delete any ALPR data within 14 days unless they get a warrant authorizing retention. The legislation prohibits the sale, trade, or exchange of captured license plate data for any purpose. Under the proposed law, any data captured or improperly maintained could not be introduced by the state in any grand jury or criminal proceeding or in any civil or administrative proceeding brought by the state or any government office or official.</p> <p>On Jan. 2, the Joint Transportation Committee held a hearing to discuss the bill.</p> <p>Passage of H3036 would prevent the state from creating permanent databases using information collected by ALPRs, and would make it highly unlikely that such data would end up in federal databases and disseminated through federal <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/10/massachusetts-state-police-tweet-inadvertently-reveals-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">fusion centers</a>.</p> <p><strong>IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS</strong></p> <p>As reported in the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spies-on-millions-of-cars-1422314779?autologin=y" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i>Wall Street Journal</i></a>, the federal government, via the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), tracks the location of millions of vehicles through data provided by ALPRs operated on a state and local level. They’ve engaged in this for nearly a decade, all without a warrant, or even public notice of the policy.</p> <p>State and local law enforcement agencies operate most of these tracking systems, paid for by federal grant money. The DEA then taps into the local database to track the whereabouts of millions of people – for the “crime” of driving – without having to operate a huge network itself.</p> <p>ALPRs can scan, capture and record thousands of license plates every minute and store them in massive databases, along with date, time and location information.</p> <p>Records <a href="https://www.eff.org/pages/automated-license-plate-reader-dataset" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation</a> (EFF) through open records requests encompassed information compiled by 200 law enforcement agencies that utilize ALPRs. The data revealed more than <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/2-5-billion-surveillance-state-goes-wild-good-morning-liberty-11-16-18/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2.5 billion license plate scans</a> in just two years (2016 and 2017).</p> <p>Perhaps more concerning, this gigantic sample of license plate scans reveals that 99.5 percent of this data was collected regardless of whether the vehicle or its owner were suspected of being involved in criminal activity. On average, agencies share this data with a minimum of <b>160 other agencies</b>. In some cases, agencies share this data with as many as <b>800 other agencies</b>.</p> <p>Police generally configure ALPRs to store the photograph, the license plate number, and the date, time, and location of a vehicle’s license plate, which is bad enough. But according to <a href="https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/071613-aclu-alprreport-opt-v05.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">records obtained by the ACLU</a> via a Freedom of Information Act request, these systems also capture photographs of drivers and their passengers.</p> <p>With the FBI <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rolling out a nationwide facial-recognition program</a> in the fall of 2014, and the federal government building <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/12/dont-rely-on-congress-to-stop-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a giant biometric database</a> with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends, the feds can potentially access stored photographs of drivers and passengers, along with detailed data revealing their location and activities. With this kind of information, government agents can easily find individuals without warrants or oversight, for any reason whatsoever.</p> <p>Since a majority of federal license plate tracking data comes from state and local law enforcement, laws banning or even restricting ALPR use are essential. As more states pass such laws, the end result becomes more clear. No data equals no federal license plate tracking program.</p> <p>Passage of H3036 would represent a good first step toward putting a big dent in federal plans to continue location tracking and expanding its facial recognition program. The less data that states make available to the federal government, the less ability it has to track people in Massachusetts and elsewhere.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>The Joint Transportation Committee must pass H3036 by a majority vote before it can move forward in the legislative process.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> License Plate Tracking State Bills ALPR automatic license plate reader Fourth Amendment H3036 Massachusetts Privacy surveillance Mike Maharrey Refuting Lies: Iran, War and the Constitution https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/refuting-lies-iran-war-and-the-constitution/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:82f508be-69b5-deaa-161a-e9893e404385 Mon, 06 Jan 2020 18:57:03 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/refuting-lies-iran-war-and-the-constitution/" title="Refuting Lies: Iran, War and the Constitution" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-010620.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-010620.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-010620-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-010620-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-010620-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />With the general public so wildly uninformed about the Constitution as ratified, coupled with a massive propaganda machine in support of the status quo, there are a lot of falsehoods floating around about what&#8217;s not only going on in Iraq and Iran &#8211; but what&#8217;s legal and Constitutional too. Michael Boldin goes through and refutes [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/refuting-lies-iran-war-and-the-constitution/" title="Refuting Lies: Iran, War and the Constitution" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-010620.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-010620.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-010620-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/path-010620-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/path-010620-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>With the general public so wildly uninformed about the Constitution as ratified, coupled with a massive propaganda machine in support of the status quo, there are a lot of falsehoods floating around about what&#8217;s not only going on in Iraq and Iran &#8211; but what&#8217;s legal and Constitutional too. Michael Boldin goes through and refutes some of the most important.</p> <p>Path to Liberty. Monday January 6, 2020<span id="more-34008"></span></p> <p><iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/dCqUa7ug_84?start=56" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>PODCAST VERSION</strong></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">iTunes</a> | <a href="https://playmusic.app.goo.gl/?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&amp;isi=691797987&amp;ius=googleplaymusic&amp;apn=com.google.android.music&amp;link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ic7vaa26zzqtt2zmxovxwkxktem?t%3DPath_to_Liberty%26pcampaignid%3DMKT-na-all-co-pr-mu-pod-16" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google Play</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Subscribe and Review on iTunes</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/09/under-the-constitution-limited-strikes-qualify-as-war/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Under the Constitution: Limited Strikes Qualify as War</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/david-stockman/the-donald-is-now-america-firsts-own-assassin/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">How the Donald Assassinated America First (MAP)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/iran-aumf-war-and-the-constitution-good-morning-liberty-02-27-19/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Iran, AUMF, War and the Constitution: Path to Liberty 02-27-19</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/IraqiGovt/status/1213040120456253442" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Iraqi PM Statements</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/06/trump-threatens-to-slap-sanctions-on-iraq-like-theyve-never-seen-before.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">We&#8217;re staying unless they pay us back</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/ndaa-2020-more-war-armies-debts-and-taxes/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">NDAA 2020: More War, Armies, Debts, and Taxes</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/09/george-washingtons-farewell-warning/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Washington&#8217;s Farewell Warning</a></p> <p><strong>ALTERNATE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/ec5adf28-66c3-41a9-8903-f44af8c043da" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/CeHLsQQovk4l/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittubers.com/post/536d806a-29bd-4af7-8fbb-3df665f6bdca" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bittubers</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/videos/531917729" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitch.tv</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.periscope.tv/w/1gqxvgyWANQKB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Periscope</a></p> <p><a href="https://dlive.tv/p/dlive-05196520+_rcQPRPZg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on DLive</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a><br /> Brave: <a href="https://brave.com/ten992" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Use Brave Browser for Privacy and Help Support TAC</a></p> <p>YouTube: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/tenthamendment">http://twitter.com/tenthamendment</a><br /> Instagram: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/</a><br /> Periscope: <a href="https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/1zqKVOPPnZMGB" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.periscope.tv/TenthAmendment/</a><br /> Twitch: <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> DLive: <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter</a><br /> Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter">https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter</a><br /> Bitchute: <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/">https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/</a><br /> Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter">https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter</a></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video Current Events Path to Liberty War AUMF Iran Iraq John Adams John Dickinson war War Powers Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center Blog 45:25 With the general public so wildly uninformed about the Constitution as ratified, coupled with a massive propaganda machine in support of the status quo, there are a lot of falsehoods floating around about what’s not only going on in Iraq and Iran – but... With the general public so wildly uninformed about the Constitution as ratified, coupled with a massive propaganda machine in support of the status quo, there are a lot of falsehoods floating around about what’s not only going on in Iraq and Iran – but what’s legal and Constitutional too. Michael Boldin goes through and refutes […] An Introduction to Virginia 2nd Amendment “Sanctuaries” https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/06/introduction-to-virginia-2nd-amendment-sanctuaries/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:ca73181a-8ce1-06f0-57ed-66bfd84a1585 Mon, 06 Jan 2020 12:30:32 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/06/introduction-to-virginia-2nd-amendment-sanctuaries/" title="An Introduction to Virginia 2nd Amendment &#8220;Sanctuaries&#8221;" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/virginia-map-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/virginia-map-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/virginia-map-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/virginia-map-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/virginia-map-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Over 90 percent of Virginia’s counties have claimed “2nd Amendment Sanctuary” status since the Nov. 5 election that gave Democrats control of Richmond for the first time in decades. But their rhetoric doesn’t match reality. The resolutions are symbolic and have no legal force. The wave of sanctuary resolutions comes in response to state lawmakers, [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/06/introduction-to-virginia-2nd-amendment-sanctuaries/" title="An Introduction to Virginia 2nd Amendment &#8220;Sanctuaries&#8221;" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/virginia-map-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/virginia-map-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/virginia-map-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/virginia-map-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/virginia-map-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Over 90 percent of Virginia’s counties have claimed “2nd Amendment Sanctuary” status since the Nov. 5 election that gave Democrats control of Richmond for the first time in decades. But their rhetoric doesn’t match reality. The resolutions are symbolic and have no legal force.</span><span id="more-28998"></span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The wave of sanctuary resolutions comes in response to state lawmakers, who along with Gov. Ralph Northam, have promised Virginians a number of strict gun control measures in the 2020 legislative session.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">A vast majority of the state’s 95 counties have adopted some type of sanctuary language. This has prompted Rep. A. Donald McEachin (D-Va.) to suggest that Northam (D) “may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law.” Meanwhile, the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in support of a militia.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Here&#8217;s what to know about Second Amendment sanctuaries in Virginia:</span></p> <p><b>Do they have the force of law?</b></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">So far, all the measures being passed are resolutions, not ordinances. In Virginia, as in most other states, resolutions are generally passed to express the political opinion of a local governing body and are not legally binding. Ordinances are used to enact law.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">In Stafford County, where a sanctuary resolution passed unanimously at its Dec. 17 meeting, Board Chairman </span><a href="https://wjla.com/news/local/stafford-county-virginia-second-amendment-sanctuary"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Gary Snellings said</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, &#8220;It is symbolic, there is no question about it.&#8221; </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors member </span><a href="https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/northern-virginia-counties-approve-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-resolutions/2185381/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Greg Benton agreed</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">. &#8220;We have no legal teeth.&#8221; </span></p> <p><b>What are they meant to do? </b></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Although the term “sanctuary” implies comparisons to local jurisdictions that refuse to participate in the enforcement of some federal immigration laws, the similarities don’t go beyond the name itself.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">San Francisco is likely the most prominent immigration “sanctuary city.” The “City and County of Refuge” Ordinance, first passed in 1989, “generally prohibits City employees from using City funds or resources to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of federal immigration law unless such assistance is required by federal or state law.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">While most of the Virginia resolutions include language similar to a model resolution provided by </span><a href="https://www.vcdl.org/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Virginia Citizens Defense League</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> expressing the Board’s “intent” that public funds “not be used to restrict the Second Amendment rights of the citizens,” intent does not have the legal force of a prohibition, as in San Francisco.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Tazewell County Board member </span><a href="https://www.heraldcourier.com/news/tazewell-county-becomes-second-amendment-sanctuary-adds-militia-ordinance-during/article_6a3d4e37-64f2-5365-9b71-7e4a694602e3.html"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Charlie Stacy said</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> his county’s resolution was passed to set up a court challenge. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“The resolution is truly designed to allow us to hire lawyers to see that laws infringing on the Second Amendment never last any longer than it takes a court to remove them,” he said.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Dana Schrad, executive director of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, </span><a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/12/11/2nd-amendment-sanctuary-virginia-counties-not-enforce-gun-laws/2610411001/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">said the resolutions</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> are &#8220;meant to put political pressure on elected officials.&#8221;</span></p> <p><b>Will local militias defend counties against new gun laws?</b></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">A growing number of media outlets have reported that Tazewell County is forming a militia to defend citizens against any new gun control measures.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Earlier this month, the county took things a step further than others by passing a second resolution supporting the right to a well-funded and regulated militia.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“Our position is that Article I, Section 13, of the Constitution of Virginia, reserves the right to ‘order’ militia to the localities,” said County Administrator Eric Young. “Therefore, counties, not the state, determine what types of arms may be carried in their territory and by whom. So, we are ‘ordering’ the militia by making sure everyone can own a weapon.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">As with 2nd Amendment Sanctuary measures, the Tazewell militia measure is also a non-binding resolution. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">When asked about how the county would prepare residents to be militiamen, Tazewell County Board member </span><a href="https://bigleaguepolitics.com/virginia-county-passes-militia-resolution-to-prepare-for-potential-gun-control-wave/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Tom Lester explained</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">:</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“Our Militia Resolution will be funding firearms safety and training for our county’s citizens, the ROTC and the public school systems – as well as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. These preparations are done to prepare our citizens to be able to become de facto militiamen if need be.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">County Board Chairman </span><a href="https://www.wjhl.com/news/local/tazewell-county-board-of-supervisors-passes-resolution-to-emphasize-right-to-militia/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Travis Hackworth echoed this</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> telling News Channel 11 that funding from the budget would go to programs such as the Boy Scouts of America, the Girl Scouts, JROTC programs and weapons training courses.</span></p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Local Right to Keep and Bear Arms 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries Virginia Michael Boldin The House Has Impeached; What Comes Next? https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/05/the-house-has-impeached-what-comes-next/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:916cf59c-b993-b6f1-13aa-2f00235ddad5 Sun, 05 Jan 2020 10:10:12 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/05/the-house-has-impeached-what-comes-next/" title="The House Has Impeached; What Comes Next?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Is impeachment valid even though the speaker has not transmitted it to the Senate? Some argue that the Senate is not prohibited by the Constitution to start a trial, even if the articles of impeachment are not transmitted from the House to the Senate. But is this the correct view? First, the Constitution does not [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/05/the-house-has-impeached-what-comes-next/" title="The House Has Impeached; What Comes Next?" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/congress-caution-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Is impeachment valid even though the speaker has not transmitted it to the Senate? Some argue that the Senate is not prohibited by the Constitution to start a trial, even if the articles of impeachment are not transmitted from the House to the Senate. But is this the correct view?<span id="more-28994"></span></p> <p>First, the Constitution does not lay out the specific rules each House of Congress must follow for impeaching someone, it only gives guidelines as to the responsibilities of each one. Each House has written their own rules as to the procedures they will follow in cases of impeachment.</p> <p>Since the Constitution left to each House the responsibility for writing their own rules and procedures regarding impeachment, <strong>Article I, Sec. 5, cl. 2</strong><em>, </em><strong>US Constitution</strong><em>, says, </em></p> <blockquote><p><em>&#8220;Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,&#8230;</em>&#8220;</p></blockquote> <p>The question shouldn’t be &#8216;does the Constitution permit the Senate to start an impeachment trial without the House of Representatives communicating that articles have been passed,&#8217; but instead, we should ask, &#8216;what do the House and Senate rules say about it?&#8217;</p> <p>Here is what <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-115/pdf/GPO-HPRACTICE-115.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>House Practice &#8211; A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House</em></a> has to say on the subject. Chapter 27 addresses impeachment procedures &#8211; the discussion begins on page 603 of the Practice Guide. Page 618 says:</p> <blockquote><p><em>“Following adoption of the articles of impeachment, the House adopts resolutions appointing managers to present the articles before the Senate, notifying the Senate of the adoption of articles and appointment of managers, and authorizing the managers to prepare for and to conduct the trial in the Senate.  Manual § 607…”</em></p></blockquote> <p>(“<em>Manual</em> § 607” refers to § 607 of the actual <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-116/pdf/HMAN-116.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rules of the House of Representatives</a>.  Section 607 is on page 325).</p> <p><strong>The House has impeached President Trump</strong>. The Rules of the House require the House to notify the Senate of the impeachment and the selection of the managers who are to present the articles before the Senate and conduct the trial in the Senate.</p> <p>In <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Senate document 113-1</a>, which is the Senate<em> manual containing the standing rules, orders, laws and resolutions affecting the business of the US Senate</em>, we can easily find what the Senate rules are.</p> <p>On <strong>page 223</strong> we find the Senate rules regarding impeachment, the procedures to be followed are described very clearly on this page in the first three sections entitled <em>Rules Of Procedure And Practice In The Senate When Sitting On Impeachment Trials. </em>In <strong>section I</strong> it says that the House of Representatives will notify the Senate that:</p> <blockquote><p>“…<em>managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate</em>…”</p></blockquote> <p>Next:</p> <blockquote><p>“…<em>the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment</em>…”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>Section II</strong> on <strong>page 223</strong> then says that:</p> <blockquote><p>“…<em>the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person</em>…”</p></blockquote> <p>Then it says that:</p> <blockquote><p>“…<em>the articles shall be exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers (of the impeachment) that the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of Representatives</em>…”</p></blockquote> <p>Finally <strong>section III</strong> says:</p> <blockquote><p>“…<strong><em>Upon such articles being presented to the Senate</em></strong>, <em>the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered…”</em></p></blockquote> <p>The Constitution is silent because it leaves it to each chamber of Congress to write their rules on how an impeachment should proceed.</p> <p>Upon reading these rules we see that the Senate must wait for the House to tell it that their managers are ready to present the articles of impeachment, then the Senate will inform the House they are ready to receive the managers. The articles will then be presented to the Senate, the presiding officer of the Senate will tell the House managers that the Senate trial will proceed.</p> <p>The trial will proceed, every day except Sunday, until the “…<em>final judgment shall be rendered…</em>”.</p> <p>Always check the <strong><em>Rules</em></strong> &#8211; particularly those expressly authorized by the Constitution.</p> <p>To summarize, the Senate cannot go to trial without the House presenting the articles of impeachment <strong>first</strong>, <em>unless</em> they change their own rules.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Featured Congress Constitution Impeachment Jim Lewis How You Can Help End Unconstitutional Wars https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/how-you-can-help-end-unconstitutional-wars/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4a61c09d-2419-3b6b-a7df-cc9213a56624 Fri, 03 Jan 2020 18:19:10 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/how-you-can-help-end-unconstitutional-wars/" title="How You Can Help End Unconstitutional Wars" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />Can action at the state level take on the endless unconstitutional wars? Yes, it can, as I explain in this interview on the Foreign Policy Focus Podcast with Kyle Anzalone. When it comes to stopping unconstitutional wars, most people reflexively assume they&#8217;ll have to work through Congress. But as I explain in this interview the [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/how-you-can-help-end-unconstitutional-wars/" title="How You Can Help End Unconstitutional Wars" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace-279x157.jpg 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace-768x432.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace-1080x608.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/video-thumbnail-george-washington-cultivate-peace-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Can action at the state level take on the endless unconstitutional wars? Yes, it can, as I explain in this interview on the Foreign Policy Focus Podcast with Kyle Anzalone. <span id="more-33983"></span></p> <p>When it comes to stopping unconstitutional wars, most people reflexively assume they&#8217;ll have to work through Congress. But as I explain in this interview <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/11/defend-the-guard-10th-amendment-check-on-unconstitutional-war-powers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the Defend the Guard Act</a> creates a mechanism at the state level that could force Congress to do its job and declare war before sending troops into offensive combat operations overseas. This legislation would prohibit the governor from activating state Guard units without a formal, congressional declaration of war.</p> <p>The movement is growing as more states will consider the bill in 2020. I explain how the legislation would work and most importantly, how you can help get it passed in your state.</p> <p>Kyle and I also touch on some other issues including the unconstitutional drug war and asset forfeiture.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Audio/Video Interviews War Defend the Guard National Guard war Mike Maharrey Tenth Amendment Center Blog 40:04 Can action at the state level take on the endless unconstitutional wars? Yes, it can, as I explain in this interview on the Foreign Policy Focus Podcast with Kyle Anzalone. When it comes to stopping unconstitutional wars, Can action at the state level take on the endless unconstitutional wars? Yes, it can, as I explain in this interview on the Foreign Policy Focus Podcast with Kyle Anzalone. When it comes to stopping unconstitutional wars, most people reflexively assume they’ll have to work through Congress. But as I explain in this interview the […] Alameda California Takes First Step Toward Banning Facial Recognition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/alameda-california-takes-first-step-toward-banning-facial-recognition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:b27f6296-6998-dc8c-1f4d-6698ed0dcfee Fri, 03 Jan 2020 18:05:35 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/alameda-california-takes-first-step-toward-banning-facial-recognition/" title="Alameda California Takes First Step Toward Banning Facial Recognition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />ALAMEDA, Calif. (Jan. 3, 2020) &#8211; Last month, Alameda took the first step toward banning the use of facial recognition technology in the city. The growing movement to prohibit the use of facial recognition at the state and local levels could hinder the operation of a growing national facial recognition network. The Alameda City Council [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/alameda-california-takes-first-step-toward-banning-facial-recognition/" title="Alameda California Takes First Step Toward Banning Facial Recognition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b-279x157.png 279w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b-768x432.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b-1024x576.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/09/facial-recognition-local-oakland-sept-2019-b-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>ALAMEDA</strong>, Calif. (Jan. 3, 2020) &#8211; Last month, Alameda took the first step toward banning the use of facial recognition technology in the city. The growing movement to prohibit the use of facial recognition at the state and local levels could hinder the operation of a growing national facial recognition network.<span id="more-33978"></span></p> <p>The Alameda City Council passed a resolution banned the use of facial recognition technology as part of a broader resolution outlining policies to protect privacy. According to <a href="https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/12/18/east-bay-city-becomes-latest-to-ban-use-of-facial-recognition-technology/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>The Mercury News</em></a>, police will still be able to work with data developed through facial recognition if it comes from an outside agency such as the FBI seeking help with an investigation.</p> <p>Alameda Vice Mayor John Knox White supports the ban.</p> <p>“It doesn’t work,” he said. “The technology is not even close to being ready for discussion.”</p> <p>The passage of the resolution is the first step toward limiting the use of facial recognition in Alameda. Council members said the next step will be to pass ordinances that will create a process for enforcing the ban so it cannot be sidestepped or ignored by police.</p> <p>The Alameda resolution makes up part of a broader nationwide movement to limit this invasive surveillance technology at the local and state level. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/first-in-the-nation-san-francisco-passes-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">San Francisco</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/oakland-city-council-unanimously-approves-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oakland</a>, and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/four-and-counting-berkeley-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Berkeley</a><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/second-in-the-nation-somerville-city-council-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">.</a> have all prohibited government use of facial recognition technology, along with  <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/second-in-the-nation-somerville-city-council-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Somerville</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/three-and-counting-northampton-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Northhampton</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/brookline-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brookline</a>, Massachusetts.  <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/portland-oregon-considering-facial-recognition-technology-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Portland, Oregon</a> is considering similar bans, The California governor recently <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/signed-as-law-california-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">signed a bill</a> that imposes a 3-year ban on the use of the tech in conjunction with police body-worn cameras, leading to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/san-diego-shuts-down-massive-facial-recognition-system-to-comply-with-new-california-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the shutdown of one of the biggest facial recognition programs in the country</a>. The New York Assembly is considering <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/new-york-assembly-passes-bill-to-ban-facial-recognition-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a bill to ban facial recognition in schools</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/new-york-bill-would-ban-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">on police body cameras</a>.</p> <p><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 local ordinances banning facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Facial Recognition Local Alameda California facial recognition Fourth Amendment Privacy surveillance Mike Maharrey Arizona Bill Would Establish Parental Choice on Vaccines, Reject Federal Narrative https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/arizona-bill-would-establish-parental-choice-on-vaccines-reject-federal-narrative/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:9748c26d-d6f5-511e-e636-3eb2af814a2e Fri, 03 Jan 2020 18:04:32 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/arizona-bill-would-establish-parental-choice-on-vaccines-reject-federal-narrative/" title="Arizona Bill Would Establish Parental Choice on Vaccines, Reject Federal Narrative" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />PHOENIX, Ariz. (Jan. 3, 2020) &#8211; A bill prefiled in the Arizona House would strengthen parental rights to make vaccination decisions and push back against any future federal vaccine mandates. On December 11, 2019, State Rep. John Fillmore (R-Apache Junction) prefiled House Bill 2050 (HB2050), which would give parents of children who are “pupils” under [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/arizona-bill-would-establish-parental-choice-on-vaccines-reject-federal-narrative/" title="Arizona Bill Would Establish Parental Choice on Vaccines, Reject Federal Narrative" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="629" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200.jpg 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-300x157.jpg 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-768x403.jpg 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-1024x537.jpg 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-1080x566.jpg 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/01/shutterstock_190528784-arizona-welcome-1200-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>PHOENIX</strong>, Ariz. (Jan. 3, 2020) &#8211; A bill prefiled in the Arizona House would strengthen parental rights to make vaccination decisions and push back against any future federal vaccine mandates.<span id="more-33996"></span></p> <p>On December 11, 2019, State Rep. John Fillmore (R-Apache Junction) prefiled House Bill 2050 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/HB2050/2020" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB2050</a>), which would give parents of children who are “pupils” under Arizona law the sole right to decide whether or not their children are vaccinated. It would also prohibit schools from requiring that pupils receive the recommended vaccinations and prohibit schools from refusing to admit, or from otherwise penalizing, pupils who have not received them. However, the bill would allow a school to exclude a pupil if he or she lacks a vaccination for a disease for which there is an active case at the pupil’s school and the public health department has declared an outbreak of the disease in the area. The bill would additionally eliminate a requirement that children be vaccinated in accordance with the recommended schedule in order for their parents to received cash assistance from the state on their behalf.</p> <p><strong>Effect on Federal Policy</strong></p> <p>Passage of HB 2050 would strengthen parental rights and make enforcement of any future federal vaccine mandates more difficult. Vaccine mandates, which are based upon CDC recommendations, currently exist at the <em>state </em>level and apply only to<em> children</em>. States have historically allowed various exemptions from the mandates, but exemptions are increasingly being rolling back or eliminated, with recent examples of this in California, Washington, Maine and New York. Furthermore, there’s reason to believe that the <em>federal </em>government may impose mandates shortly and that the mandates may not be limited to children.</p> <p>Mandates are increasingly being issued at a federal level around the world, such as in Argentina, Italy and France. [1] [2] In the U.S., in February of 2019, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, then Commissioner of the FDA, made comments to CNN indicating that the federal government has the authority to mandate vaccines and could step in with mandates if states don’t require more children to be vaccinated. [3] Gottlieb resigned as FDA Commissioner in May of 2019, shortly after making the comments, and joined the Board of Directors of Pfizer, Inc., a vaccine manufacturer, in June of 2019. [4] His departure from a high-level CDC position into a high-level position with a vaccine manufacturer was not unusual. Julie Gerberding is an earlier example of this “revolving door.” She was the director of the CDC from 2002 to 2009 and accepted a highly paid position as president of Merck’s vaccine division only about a year after leaving the CDC. [5]</p> <p>In the U.S., the feds have explicitly stated the goals of increasing overall vaccination rates and increasing rates specifically in the adult population. These goals are discussed in the National Vaccine Plan (NVP) and the National Adult Immunization Plan (NAIP), respectively, which can be found on HHS’s website. [6] [7] The goals stated in the NVP include, among others, developing new vaccines. [8] The goals set forth in the NAIP include strengthening the “adult vaccine infrastructure”, increasing access to adult vaccines and increasing “community demand” for adult immunizations. [9]</p> <p>There are many reasons to be concerned about vaccine mandates. Several of them are discussed below.</p> <p><strong>The government has removed liability for vaccine manufacturers and those administering vaccines.</strong></p> <p>Although almost all U.S. manufacturers are subject to product liability, the federal government has lifted this burden from the manufacturers of most vaccines Americans receive. Liability has also been lifted for those administering the vaccines. This resulted from the 1986 passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) and subsequent amendments to the Act, along with the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision in <em>Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.</em> [10]</p> <p>The 1986 Act also created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), a special system outside of the normal litigation process for claims of harm caused by vaccines, in which the government is the defendant, not the vaccine manufacturers. Any compensation granted by the NVICP is paid by the public, through a surcharge on vaccines, and not by vaccine manufacturers. Over $4 billion has been paid out to date under this system. [11]</p> <p>The lack of liability for vaccine manufacturers creates an obvious disincentive to make vaccines as safe as possible.</p> <p><strong>The normal rules of discovery don’t apply to vaccine manufacturers. </strong></p> <p>During product liability litigation, companies generally must respond to discovery. This requires them to produce relevant records, such as e-mails and research records, and to answer interrogatories and requests for admissions.</p> <p>Discovery is the process through which damaging evidence has come to light in recent high-profile product liability cases, such as those involving Bayer/Monsanto’s Glyphosate, Johnson &amp; Johnson’s talc products and Merck’s Vioxx. Despite how useful discovery is in uncovering relevant evidence, the government has also given vaccine manufacturers a pass in this area. Discovery is not permitted in the NVICP process and, pursuant to the NCVIA, vaccine manufacturers cannot be made to submit to discovery in connection with claims of vaccine injury. Like the lack of product liability, this lack of claimants’ right to discovery is nearly unique to the vaccine industry.</p> <p><strong>The number of vaccines and the number of doses of vaccines on the schedules is growing significantly.</strong></p> <p>Not surprisingly, since liability was removed from vaccine manufacturers in 1986, the number of vaccines recommended by the industry and the CDC has risen sharply. For example, the CDC currently recommends 70 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18. [12] This is a significant increase from the 24 doses of 7 childhood vaccines recommended by the CDC in 1983. [13]</p> <p>The expanding number of vaccines being administered has prompted safety concerns. For example, because aluminum is an ingredient in multiple vaccines, concerns have arisen about whether receiving all of the vaccines on the recommended schedules can cause aluminum toxicity. Some research points to this possibility. A recent study in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology concluded that the current CDC childhood vaccine schedule is 15.9 times over the recommended safe level of aluminum when researchers adjusted for body weight and also estimated that a child who followed the vaccine schedule would be in a state of “chronic toxicity” for 70% of the child’s first seven months of life, 149 days from birth to seven months. [14] [15]</p> <p>Many Americans are unaware that the CDC has <em>both </em>a<em> </em>childhood vaccine schedule and an adult one. [16] A person receiving all of the recommended doses on both schedules would receive a lifetime total of approximately 149 vaccine doses. [17] Further, hundreds of new vaccines are in the developmental process and it is expected that many will be added to the CDC’s schedules.</p> <p>Once the CDC’s vaccine schedules are mandated by federal law, Americans will continue to be subject to them even as more vaccines and doses are added, in a dangerous slippery slope.  Additionally, federal vaccine mandates may open the door to federal mandates for other medical treatments and procedures without informed consent.</p> <p><strong>Vaccines safety testing is far less rigorous than the public may believe.</strong></p> <p>The public would likely be surprised to learn that the safety testing required of vaccines, a product mandated to be injected into children, is far less rigorous than that required for drugs. The FDA has classified vaccines as “biologics” rather than “drugs,” thereby allowing vaccine manufacturers to forego the multi-year, double-blind inert placebo-controlled studies required for drug approval. [18] [19] Additionally, vaccines are subject to very short periods of monitoring for adverse reactions, often of 14 days or less. [20] [21]</p> <p>Further, the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule includes recommendations that children receive multiple vaccines in the same office visit, but the CDC hasn’t required safety testing of the vaccines in these combinations. [22]</p> <p>The CDC also hasn’t required studies comparing the health outcomes of children vaccinated in accordance with the CDC’s schedule with those of unvaccinated children. Parents may wish to conduct their own review of the research on this topic. On July 18, 2019, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) posted an article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of CHD, entitled “Fully Vaccinated v. Unvaccinated – A Summary of the Research” summarizing the results of multiple vaccinated/unvaccinated studies conducted since 1999 by independent scientists and research institutions and, according to the article, “[t]hose studies indicate high incidence of chronic diseases and brain and immune system injuries among vaccinated compared to unvaccinated cohorts.” [23]</p> <p><strong>Vaccine mandates place decision-making regarding a complex medical intervention in the hands of bureaucrats.</strong></p> <p>The scientific issues related to vaccines are highly complex. Individuals may wish to retain the right to make vaccination decisions based upon the advice of their chosen medical professionals rather than relinquishing this right to bureaucratic mandates. Some additional issues to be considered in connection with vaccines include the following: their risks of adverse reactions [24]; their toxic or concerning ingredients (such as aluminum, mercury, antibiotics, formaldehyde, Polysorbate 80, MSG and aborted human fetal tissue) [25]; their surprisingly low effectiveness rates [26] [27]; their diminished effectiveness with subsequent doses [28]; the strain replacement and strain enhancement they can cause [29] [30]; the existence of vaccine strains of viruses [31]; the viral shedding that can occur following some vaccinations [32] [33]; evidence linking them to conditions such as autism [34] [35], autoimmune disorders [36] [37], allergies [38] and other medical conditions; and how their use for one infectious disease can increase the incidence of other infectious diseases, such as the incidence of shingles increasing from use of the chickenpox vaccine [39]. This list is not exhaustive.</p> <p><strong>States Must Resist Federal Vaccine Mandates. </strong></p> <p>As we have seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, federal regulation becomes ineffective when states enact contradictory policies. If multiple states ban mandatory vaccinations or pass laws that conflict with the CDC’s recommended schedules, it will become difficult for the federal government to enforce future federal mandates. Such state laws will also undermine the federal narrative and make it more difficult for the feds to generate support for nationwide mandatory vaccine policies.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB2050 will be officially introduced and referred to a committee when the legislature convenes on Jan. 13. It must pass committee by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.</p> <p><strong>Additional Reading</strong></p> <p>The websites and books below contain additional information.</p> <ul> <li>Children’s Health Defense. <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/</a></li> <li>The HighWire with Del Bigtree. <a href="https://thehighwire.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://thehighwire.com/</a></li> <li>Informed Consent Action Network. <a href="https://www.icandecide.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.icandecide.org/</a></li> <li>National Vaccine Information Center. <a href="https://www.nvic.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.nvic.org/</a></li> <li>Vaxxter. <a href="https://vaxxter.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://vaxxter.com/</a></li> <li><em> Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers</em>by Neil Z. Miller [40]</li> <li><em> Vaccines – A Reappraisal </em><em>by Dr. Richard Moskowitz</em>[41]</li> <li><em> How to End the Autism Epidemic </em><em>by J.B. Handley</em>[42]</li> <li><em> Dissolving Illusions – Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History </em><em>by Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk</em>[43]</li> <li><em> Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illnesses </em>by Dr. Thomas Cowan [44]</li> </ul> <p><strong>NOTES</strong></p> <p>[1] <a href="https://healthimpactnews.com/2018/argentina-creates-mandatory-vaccination-law-for-passport-id-drivers-license-school-more/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://healthimpactnews.com/2018/argentina-creates-mandatory-vaccination-law-for-passport-id-drivers-license-school-more/</a></p> <p>[2] <a href="https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/02/european-countries-move-to-expand-enforce-vaccine-mandates/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/02/european-countries-move-to-expand-enforce-vaccine-mandates/</a></p> <p>[3] <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/health/vaccine-exemptions-fda-gottlieb/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/health/vaccine-exemptions-fda-gottlieb/index.html</a></p> <p>[4] <a href="https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/scott_gottlieb_elected_to_pfizer_s_board_of_directors" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/scott_gottlieb_elected_to_pfizer_s_board_of_directors</a></p> <p>[5] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-normalization-of-corruption-big-pharma-takes-tobacco-tactics-to-a-new-level/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-normalization-of-corruption-big-pharma-takes-tobacco-tactics-to-a-new-level/</a></p> <p>[6] <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/vaccines/national-vaccine-plan/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.hhs.gov/vaccines/national-vaccine-plan/index.html</a></p> <p>[7] <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/vaccines/national-adult-immunization-plan/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.hhs.gov/vaccines/national-adult-immunization-plan/index.html</a></p> <p>[8] <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/vaccines/national-vaccine-plan/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.hhs.gov/vaccines/national-vaccine-plan/index.html</a></p> <p>[9] <a href="https://www.hhs.gov/vaccines/national-adult-immunization-plan/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.hhs.gov/vaccines/national-adult-immunization-plan/index.html</a></p> <p>[10] <a href="https://www.nvic.org/injury-compensation/nvic-position-on-1986-childhood-vaccine-injury-act.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.nvic.org/injury-compensation/nvic-position-on-1986-childhood-vaccine-injury-act.aspx</a></p> <p>[11] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/4-billion-and-growing-u-s-payouts-for-vaccine-injuries-and-deaths-keep-climbing/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/4-billion-and-growing-u-s-payouts-for-vaccine-injuries-and-deaths-keep-climbing/</a></p> <p>[12] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-mandates-results-dont-safeguard-childrens-rights-or-health-how-did-we-get-here/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-mandates-results-dont-safeguard-childrens-rights-or-health-how-did-we-get-here</a></p> <p>[13] <a href="https://www.nvic.org/cmstemplates/nvic/pdf/downloads/1983-2017-vaccine-schedules.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.nvic.org/cmstemplates/nvic/pdf/downloads/1983-2017-vaccine-schedules.pdf</a></p> <p>[14] <a href="https://thehighwire.com/study-cdc-vaccine-schedule-likely-induces-aluminum-toxicity-in-newborns/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://thehighwire.com/study-cdc-vaccine-schedule-likely-induces-aluminum-toxicity-in-newborns/</a></p> <p>[15] <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X19305784#bib0130" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X19305784#bib0130</a></p> <p>[16] <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/index.html</a></p> <p>[17] Moskowitz, Richard, <em>Vaccines – A Reappraisal</em>. New York, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2017. 241-242. Print.</p> <p>[18] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines-and-the-liberal-mind/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines-and-the-liberal-mind/</a></p> <p>[19] Moskowitz, Richard, <em>Vaccines – A Reappraisal</em>. New York, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2017. 29-31. Print.</p> <p>[20] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines-and-the-liberal-mind/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines-and-the-liberal-mind/</a></p> <p>[21] Moskowitz, Richard, <em>Vaccines – A Reappraisal</em>. New York, New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2017. 31-42. Print.</p> <p>[22] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/countering-false-vaccine-safety-claims/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/countering-false-vaccine-safety-claims/</a></p> <p>[23] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/research-reviews/fully-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-a-summary-of-the-research/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/research-reviews/fully-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-a-summary-of-the-research/</a></p> <p>[24] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/an-open-letter-to-nick-paumgarten-author-of-the-message-of-measles/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/an-open-letter-to-nick-paumgarten-author-of-the-message-of-measles/</a></p> <p>[25] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/toxic-vaccine-ingredients-the-devils-in-the-details/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/toxic-vaccine-ingredients-the-devils-in-the-details/</a></p> <p>[26] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines/mmr-vaccines-poison-pill-mumps-after-puberty-reduced-testosterone-and-sperm-counts/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines/mmr-vaccines-poison-pill-mumps-after-puberty-reduced-testosterone-and-sperm-counts/</a></p> <p>[27] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/failure-to-vaccinate-or-vaccine-failure-what-is-driving-disease-outbreaks/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/failure-to-vaccinate-or-vaccine-failure-what-is-driving-disease-outbreaks/</a></p> <p>[28] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/failure-to-vaccinate-or-vaccine-failure-what-is-driving-disease-outbreaks/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/failure-to-vaccinate-or-vaccine-failure-what-is-driving-disease-outbreaks/</a></p> <p>[29] <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/worse-than-nothing-how-ineffective-vaccines-enhance-disease/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/worse-than-nothing-how-ineffective-vaccines-enhance-disease/</a></p> <p>[30] <a href="https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2015/09/14/the-ugly-untold-truth-about-the-pertussis-vaccine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2015/09/14/the-ugly-untold-truth-about-the-pertussis-vaccine/</a></p> <p>[31] <a href="https://child State Bills Vaccines Arizona CDC FDA HB2050 Healthcare Davis Taylor Nullify Government Tyranny: In 2020, Harness the Power of Your Discontent https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/03/nullify-government-tyranny-in-2020-harness-the-power-of-your-discontent/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:a4e1c815-84dc-fb1b-b39d-2d47a15f31d9 Fri, 03 Jan 2020 10:48:19 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/03/nullify-government-tyranny-in-2020-harness-the-power-of-your-discontent/" title="Nullify Government Tyranny: In 2020, Harness the Power of Your Discontent" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />nullify everything the government does that flies in the face of the principles on which this nation was founded. <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/03/nullify-government-tyranny-in-2020-harness-the-power-of-your-discontent/" title="Nullify Government Tyranny: In 2020, Harness the Power of Your Discontent" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280.png 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280-300x169.png 300w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280-768x432.png 768w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280-1024x576.png 1024w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280-1080x608.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/shutterstock_56310223-uncle-sam-torn-poster-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>Twenty years into the 21<sup>st</sup> century, and what do we have to show for it?</p> <p>Government corruption, tyranny and abuse have propelled us at warp speed towards a full-blown police state in which egregious surveillance, roadside strip searches, police shootings of unarmed citizens, censorship, retaliatory arrests, the criminalization of lawful activities, warmongering, indefinite detentions, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, police brutality, profit-driven prisons, and pay-to-play politicians have become the new normal.</p> <p>Here’s just a small sampling of the laundry list of abuses—cruel, brutal, immoral, unconstitutional and unacceptable—that have been heaped upon us by the government over the past two decades.</p> <p><strong>The government failed to protect our lives, liberty and happiness.</strong> The predators of the police state wreaked havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives. The government didn’t listen to the citizenry, refused to abide by the Constitution, and treated the citizenry as a source of funding and little else. Police officers shot unarmed citizens and their household pets. Government agents—including local police—were armed to the teeth and encouraged to act like soldiers on a battlefield. Bloated government agencies were allowed to fleece taxpayers. Government technicians spied on our emails and phone calls. And government contractors made a killing by waging endless wars abroad.</p> <p><strong>The American President became more imperial.</strong> Although the Constitution invests the President with very specific, limited powers, in recent years, American presidents (Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.) claimed the power to completely and almost unilaterally alter the landscape of this country for good or for ill. The powers that have been amassed by each successive president through the negligence of Congress and the courts—powers which add up to a toolbox of terror for an imperial ruler—empower whomever occupies the Oval Office to act as a dictator, above the law and beyond any real accountability. The presidency itself has become an imperial one with permanent powers.</p> <p><strong>Militarized police became a power unto themselves, 911 calls turned deadly, and traffic stops took a turn for the worse. </strong>Lacking in transparency and accountability, protected by the courts and legislators, and rife with misconduct, America’s police forces became a growing menace to the citizenry and the rule of law. Despite concerns about the government’s steady transformation of local police into a standing military army, local police agencies <a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/02/military_surplus_program_1033_nj.html">acquired even more weaponry</a>, training and equipment suited for the battlefield. Police officers were also given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons and subject them to forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases.</p> <p><strong>The courts failed to uphold justice.</strong> With every ruling handed down, it becomes more apparent that we live in an age of hollow justice, with government courts more concerned with protecting government agents than upholding the rights of “we the people.” This is true at all levels of the judiciary, but especially so in the highest court of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, which is seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution. A review of critical court rulings over the past two decades, including some ominous ones by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting the ruling class and government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.</p> <p><strong>The Surveillance State rendered Americans vulnerable to threats from government spies, police, hackers and power failures. </strong>Thanks to the government’s ongoing efforts to build massive databases using emerging surveillance, DNA and biometrics technologies, Americans have become sitting ducks for hackers and government spies alike. <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/12/28/data-breaches-2018-billions-hit-growing-number-cyberattacks/2413411002/">Billions of people have been affected by data breaches and cyberattacks.</a> On a daily basis, Americans have been made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to <a href="https://iapp.org/news/a/can-the-u-s-legal-system-can-adapt-to-biometric-technology/">navigate an increasingly technologically-enabled world</a>.</p> <p><strong>Mass shootings claimed more lives. </strong>Mass shootings have taken place in virtually every venue, including at churches, in nightclubs, on college campuses, on military bases, in <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-attack-deadliest-us-mass-shooting-trnd/index.html">elementary schools</a>, in government offices, and at concerts. However, studies make clear that the government’s gun violence—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—poses <a href="https://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-mass-shooters-guns/">a greater threat to the safety and security of the nation</a> than any mass shooter.</p> <p><strong>Debtors’ prisons made a comeback.</strong> Not content to expand the police state’s power to search, strip, seize, raid, steal from, arrest and jail Americans for any infraction, no matter how insignificant, state courts were given the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/opinion/sessions-says-to-courts-go-ahead-jail-people-because-theyre-poor.html">green light to resume their practice of jailing individuals who are unable to pay the hefty fines</a> imposed by the American police state. These debtors’ prisons play right into the hands of the corporations that make a profit by jailing Americans. This is no longer a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” It has become a government “of the rich, by the elite, for the corporations,” and its rise to power has been predicated on shackling the American taxpayer to a debtors’ prison guarded by a phalanx of politicians, bureaucrats and militarized police with no hope of parole and no chance for escape.</p> <p><strong>The cost of endless wars drove the nation deeper into debt.</strong> <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/america-is-bankrupt-and-republicans-couldnt-care-less/">America’s war spending has <em>already</em> bankrupted the nation</a> to the tune of more than $20 trillion dollars. Policing the globe and waging endless wars abroad hasn’t made America—or the rest of the world—any safer, but it has made the military industrial complex rich at taxpayer expense. Approximately <a href="https://www.mintpressnews.com/africom-us-military-africa/248552/">200,000 US troops are stationed in 177 countries throughout the world, including Africa</a>, where troops reportedly carry out an average of 10 military exercises and engagements daily. Meanwhile, America’s infrastructure is falling apart. The interest on the money America has borrowed to wage its wars will cost an <a href="http://www.mintpressnews.com/report-post-911-war-debt-will-cost-us-8-trillion-interest-alone/234405/">estimated $8 trillion</a>.</p> <p><strong>“Show your papers” incidents skyrocketed. </strong>We are not supposed to be living in a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/papers-please/517887/">“show me your papers” society</a>. Despite this, the U.S. government has introduced measures allowing police and other law enforcement officials to stop individuals (citizens and noncitizens alike), demand they identify themselves, and subject them to patdowns, warrantless searches, and interrogations. These actions fly in the face of longstanding constitutional safeguards forbidding such police state tactics.</p> <p><strong>The government waged war on military veterans.</strong> The government has done a pitiful job of respecting the freedoms of military veterans and caring for their needs once out of uniform. Despite the fact that the U.S. boasts more than 20 million veterans who have served in World War II through the present day, the plight of veterans today is America’s badge of shame, with large numbers of veterans impoverished, unemployed, traumatized mentally and physically, struggling with depression, <a href="http://time.com/5483823/veterans-affairs-suicide-prevention/">suicide</a>, and marital stress, homeless, subjected to sub-par treatment at clinics and hospitals, left to molder while their paperwork piles up within Veterans Administration offices, and increasingly treated like criminals—targeted for <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123992665198727459.html">surveillance</a>, censorship, threatened with incarceration or involuntary commitment, labeled as <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-greater-danger-military-trained-right-wing-extremists/275277/">extremists</a> and/or mentally ill, and <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/295484-va-is-restricting-veterans-gun-rights-without-due-process">stripped of their Second Amendment rights</a>—for daring to speak out against government misconduct.</p> <p><strong>Free speech was dealt one knock-out punch after another.</strong> <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/gop-lawmakers-try-rein-mass-protests-new-state-laws/">Protest laws</a>, free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws, shadow banning on the Internet, and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors (and championed by those who want to suppress speech with which they might disagree) conspired to corrode our core freedoms, purportedly for our own good. On paper—at least according to the U.S. Constitution—we are technically free to speak. In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow. The reasons for such <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-its-a-bad-idea-to-tell-students-words-are-violence/533970/">censorship</a> varied widely from political correctness, so-called safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remained the same: the complete eradication of free speech.</p> <p><strong>The government waged a renewed war on private property. </strong>The battle to protect our private property has become the final constitutional frontier, the last holdout against our freedoms being usurped. We no longer have any real property rights. That house you live in, the car you drive, the small (or not so small) acreage of land that has been passed down through your family or that you scrimped and saved to acquire, whatever money you manage to keep in your bank account after the government and its cronies have taken their first and second and third cut…none of it is safe from the government’s greedy grasp. At no point do you ever have any real ownership in anything other than the clothes on your back. Everything else can be seized by the government under one pretext or another (civil asset forfeiture, unpaid taxes, eminent domain, public interest, etc.).</p> <p><strong>Schools became even more like prisons.</strong> So-called school “safety” policies—which run the gamut from zero tolerance policies that punish all infractions harshly to surveillance cameras, metal detectors, random searches, drug-sniffing dogs, school-wide lockdowns, active-shooter drills and militarized police officers—have turned schools into prisons and young people into prisoners. From the moment a child enters <a href="https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84">one of the nation’s 98,000 public schools</a> to the moment she graduates, she will be exposed to a steady diet of draconian zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, overreaching anti-bullying statutes that criminalize speech, school resource officers (police) tasked with disciplining and/or arresting so-called “disorderly” students, standardized testing that emphasizes rote answers over critical thinking, politically correct mindsets that teach young people to censor themselves and those around them, and extensive biometric and surveillance systems that, coupled with the rest, acclimate young people to a world in which they have no freedom of thought, speech or movement.</p> <p><strong>The Deep State took over.</strong> The American system of representative government was overthrown by the Deep State—a.k.a. the police state a.k.a. the military/corporate industrial complex—a profit-driven, militaristic corporate state bent on total control and global domination through the imposition of martial law here at home and by fomenting wars abroad. The “government of the people, by the people, for the people” has perished. In its place is a shadow government, a corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House. Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law. This is the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry. This <a href="http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/">shadow government</a>, which “<a href="file:///dc01/media/ARTICLES/JWW%20Newspaper%20Columns/2015/FN/v">operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power</a>,” makes a mockery of elections and the entire concept of a representative government.</p> <p>The takeaway: Everything the founders of this country feared has come to dominate in modern America. “We the people” have been saddled with a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics.</p> <p>So how do you balance the scales of justice at a time when Americans are being tasered, tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, hit with batons, shot with rubber bullets and real bullets, blasted with sound cannons, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-north-dakota-pipeline-20161028-story.html">detained in cages and kennels</a>, sicced by police dogs, arrested and jailed for challenging the government’s excesses, abuses and power-grabs?</p> <p>No matter who sits in the White House, politics won’t fix a system that is broken beyond repair.</p> <p>For that matter, protests and populist movements also haven’t done much to push back against an authoritarian regime that is deaf to our cries, dumb to our troubles, blind to our needs, and accountable to no one.</p> <p>So how do you not only push back against the police state’s bureaucracy, corruption and cruelty but also launch a counterrevolution aimed at reclaiming control over the government using nonviolent means?</p> <p>You start by changing the rules and engaging in some (nonviolent) guerilla tactics.</p> <p>Take part in grassroots activism, which takes a trickle-up approach to governmental reform by implementing change at the local level (in other words, think nationally, but act locally).</p> <p>And then, nullify everything the government does that flies in the face of the principles on which this nation was founded.</p> <p>If there is any means left to us for thwarting the government in its relentless march towards outright dictatorship, it may rest with the power of juries and local governments to invalidate governmental laws, tactics and policies that are illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.</p> <p>In an age in which government officials accused of wrongdoing—police officers, elected officials, etc.—are treated with general leniency, while the average citizen is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, nullification is a powerful reminder that, as the Constitution tells us, “we the people” are the government.</p> <p>For too long we’ve allowed our so-called “representatives” to call the shots. Now it’s time to restore the citizenry to their rightful place in the republic: as the masters, not the servants.</p> <p>Nullification is one way of doing so.</p> <p>Various cities and states have been using this historic doctrine with mixed results on issues as wide ranging as gun control and healthcare to “<a href="http://theweek.com/articles/460591/nullification-movement-how-states-aim-ignore-federal-gun-laws">claim freedom from federal laws they find onerous or wrongheaded</a>.” Most recently, a growing number of communities—including more than a 100 counties, cities and towns in Virginia—have declared themselves to be <a href="https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-12-21/second-amendment-sanctuary-push-aims-to-defy-new-gun-laws">Second Amendment sanctuaries</a> and adopted resolutions opposing any “unconstitutional restrictions” on the right to keep and bear arms. It is mass movements such as these that the government fears most.</p> <p>Indeed, any hope of freeing ourselves rests—as it always has—at the local level, with “we the people.” One of the most important contributions an individual citizen can make is to become actively involved in local community affairs, politics and legal battles. As the adage goes, “Think globally, act locally.”</p> <p>America was meant to be primarily a system of local governments, which is a far cry from the colossal federal bureaucracy we have today. Yet if our freedoms are to be restored, understanding what is transpiring practically in your own backyard—in one’s home, neighborhood, school district, town council—and taking action at that local level must be the starting point.</p> <p>Responding to unmet local needs and reacting to injustices is what grassroots activism is all about. Attend local city council meetings, speak up at town hall meetings, organize protests and letter-writing campaigns, employ “militant nonviolent resistance” and civil disobedience, which Martin Luther King Jr. used to great effect through the use of sit-ins, boycotts and marches.</p> <p>Let’s not take the mistakes, carnage, toxicity and abuse of this past decade into 2020.</p> <p>As long as we continue to allow callousness, cruelty, meanness, immorality, ignorance, hatred, intolerance, racism, militarism, materialism, meanness and injustice—magnified by an echo chamber of nasty tweets and government-sanctioned brutality—to trump justice, fairness and equality, there can be no hope of prevailing against the police state.</p> <p>As I make clear in my book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-America-War-American-People/dp/1590793099/"><em>Battlefield America: The War on the American People</em></a>, we could transform this nation if only Americans would work together to harness the power of their discontent and push back against the government’s overreach, excesses and abuse.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Nullification Strategy John Whitehead Now in Effect: California Law Hinders Federal Efforts to Expand Oil and Gas Drilling https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/now-in-effect-california-law-hinders-federal-efforts-to-expand-oil-and-gas-drilling/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:21f61446-06d8-50f1-b4c2-956bd819a051 Thu, 02 Jan 2020 16:08:47 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/now-in-effect-california-law-hinders-federal-efforts-to-expand-oil-and-gas-drilling/" title="Now in Effect: California Law Hinders Federal Efforts to Expand Oil and Gas Drilling" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/03/california-map-coast-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/california-map-coast-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/california-map-coast-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/california-map-coast-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/03/california-map-coast-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Jan. 2, 2020) &#8211; Yesterday, a new law went into effect that prohibits the construction of pipelines or other infrastructure on state lands. In practice, this will undermine efforts by the Trump administration to expand oil and gas drilling on federal lands in the state Asm. Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates) and Sen. [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/now-in-effect-california-law-hinders-federal-efforts-to-expand-oil-and-gas-drilling/" title="Now in Effect: California Law Hinders Federal Efforts to Expand Oil and Gas Drilling" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/03/california-map-coast-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/california-map-coast-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/california-map-coast-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/03/california-map-coast-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/03/california-map-coast-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>SACRAMENTO</strong>, Calif. (Jan. 2, 2020) &#8211; Yesterday, a new law went into effect that prohibits the construction of pipelines or other infrastructure on state lands. In practice, this will undermine efforts by the Trump administration to expand oil and gas drilling on federal lands in the state<span id="more-33989"></span></p> <p>Asm. Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates) and Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D- Santa Barbara) sponsored Assembly Bill 342 (<a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB342">AB342</a>). The new law prohibits any state agency with leasing authority over California public lands from allowing the construction of new oil or gas infrastructure intended to support oil and natural gas production on federal lands now or previously designated as federally protected.</p> <p>The law does not affect oil or natural gas production on state lands or waters. Nor does the law extend the prohibition to private land.</p> <p>The Assembly <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB342/id/870101" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">passed AB342 by a 51-19 vote</a>. The Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB342/id/892601" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">passed the measure 23-9</a>. With Gov. Gavin Newsome&#8217;s signature on Oct. 12, the law went into effect Jan. 1, 2020.</p> <p>By blocking the transportation of oil and natural gas across state lands that adjoin federal lands, California will throw a roadblock in front of companies wanting to drill for oil or gas on federal lands. According to the LA Times, the prohibition includes &#8220;state lands near the Carrizo Plains National Monument in San Luis Obispo County, an area known for its spectacular wildflower blooms and potentially large reserves of oil and gas.&#8221;</p> <p>“This bill is all about California fighting the Trump administration’s plan to frack and drill in some of our most beautiful federal protected lands and national monuments,” Muratsuchi <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-09/california-lawmakers-block-trump-oil-drilling-fracking" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">told the <em>LA Times</em></a>.</p> <p>The new law is a response to Trump Administration plans to open up federal lands in California to oil and gas production. The federal government <a href="https://ricochet.com/445923/archives/let-west-control-land/">controls nearly 48 percent of the lands in California</a>. Last April, the Trump administration announced a <a class="Link" href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-fracking-oil-gas-california-20190425-story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">plan to open more than a million acres of public and private land in California to fracking,</a> The move ended a five-year moratorium on leasing federal land in California to oil and gas developers.</p> <p>AB342 is similar to a bill signed last year by Gov. Jerry Brown that was intended to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/02/california-plans-to-take-on-trump-offshore-oil-drilling-plan-by-denying-pipeline-permits/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">block offshore oil drilling</a> by prohibiting the construction of pipelines, piers, wharves or other infrastructure necessary to transport the oil and gas from federal waters to state land.</p> <p>The strategy used by California is similar to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQeWS2GvqJ8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the one used by Nevada to block the construction of a nuclear waste facility</a> on Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy (DOE) filed five applications to obtain the water it needed to begin drilling and constructing the facility. Each time, the state of Nevada denied the permits and refused to grant access to the water. Without water, the Yucca Mountain waste dump project was stopped cold.</p> <p>This strategy follows <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/07/the-blueprint-james-madisons-advice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the blueprint laid out by James Madison in <em>Federalist #46</em></a> where he advised: “a refusal to cooperate with offers of the union” when the federal government commits an “unwarrantable” or unpopular act. This provides an extremely effective means of confronting federal power. The feds depend on state cooperation and resources to enforce nearly all of its laws and to implement all of its programs.</p> <p>The new law rests on solid legal ground – a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a> is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <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> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Environment Land State Bills TJ Martinell Federal Appeals Court: Warrantless Data Collection Is Constitutional https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/02/federal-appeals-court-warrantless-data-collection-is-constitutional/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:2a6c3948-200b-9fa0-1639-d59c757cab4e Thu, 02 Jan 2020 15:54:49 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/02/federal-appeals-court-warrantless-data-collection-is-constitutional/" title="Federal Appeals Court: Warrantless Data Collection Is Constitutional" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion that domestic data gobbled up by the National Security Agency (NSA) under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and PRISM are are not covered by the Fourth Amendment and their collection by the government is usually constitutional. The court held that the data [&#8230;] <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/02/federal-appeals-court-warrantless-data-collection-is-constitutional/" title="Federal Appeals Court: Warrantless Data Collection Is Constitutional" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280.jpg 1280w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/bigstock-Close-Up-Erasing-The-Fourth-Am-24731816-redacted-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion that domestic data gobbled up by the National Security Agency (NSA) under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and PRISM are are not covered by the Fourth Amendment and their collection by the government is usually constitutional.</p> <p>The court held that the data gathered via electronic query in pursuance of the case against Agron Hasbajrami did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unwarranted searches and seizures, stating that, “The ‘incidental collection’ of communications (that is, the collection of the communications of individuals in the United States acquired in the course of the surveillance of individuals without ties to the United States and located abroad) is permissible under the Fourth Amendment.”</p> <p>Furthermore, the court held that “the vast majority of the evidence detailed in the record was lawfully collected.”</p> <p>In fairness, the court did opine that the federal government’s dragnet collection of the electronic data of Americans raises “novel constitutional questions” that could be addressed by another court.</p> <p>For its part, the federal government argued that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t extend to private e-mails or phone-call data.</p> <p>Here’s the background of the facts of the case, as printed in the opinion of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals:</p> <blockquote><p>Agron Hasbajrami was arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2011 and charged with attempting to provide material support to a terrorist organization. After he pleaded guilty, the government disclosed, for the first time, that certain evidence involved in Hasbajrami’s arrest and prosecution had been derived from information obtained by the government without a warrant pursuant to its warrantless surveillance program under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Hasbajrami then withdrew his initial plea and moved to suppress any fruits of the Section 702 surveillance. The district court denied the motion to suppress and Hasbajrami again pleaded guilty, this time pursuant to a conditional guilty plea that allowed him to appeal the district court’s ruling denying his motion to suppress.</p></blockquote> <p>Remarkably, Hasbajrami’s lawyers seemed pleased by the decision. “We are gratified by the Court’s remand to resolve a critical factual and constitutional question in this case, as well as its recognition of the important constitutional issues that FISA section 702 raises for everyone. We look forward to the next stage of the litigation,” Hasbajrami&#8217;s lawyer Joshua Dratel said in a statement.</p> <p>While the judges did hold that querying certain intelligence databases “could violate the Fourth Amendment, and thus require the suppression of evidence,” the decision was overall a victory for the surveillance state.</p> <p>The PRISM program mentioned above was one of the surveillance programs revealed by Edward Snowden.</p> <p>Under PRISM, the NSA and the FBI are “tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time,” as reported by the <em>Washington Post</em>.</p> <p>One document in the Snowden revelations indicated that PRISM was “the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports.” Snowden claimed that the program was so invasive that the NSA and the FBI “quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type.”</p> <p>That’s the sort of thing the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.</p> <p>The Founders would disagree.</p> <p>The assault on our rights made by the NSA and other agencies within the federal surveillance apparatus is in every significant way identical to a tactic used by the British Empire in its own attempt to deprive Americans of their liberties some 250 years ago.</p> <p>King George II (and his son and successor, George III) issued orders known as general writs of assistance. In simple terms, these writs authorized law enforcement and other representatives of the crown to enter buildings to search for contraband without obtaining a warrant. This did not sit well with American Englishmen, and they were determined to boldly declare their determination not to be subjected to searches that exceeded the constitutional authority of the king and Parliament.</p> <p>Given the role that rebellion against these searches and seizures by government played in igniting the spark that lit the fires of armed resistance in America and the American War for Independence, it is remarkable that there aren’t more Americans advocating for the immediate abolition of all the agencies involved in the issuing and executing of these contemporary Writs of Assistance.</p> <p>James Otis is a name that is almost completely forgotten by contemporary Americans, but he was once the most famous lawyer in the colonies, and it was his renowned recrimination of unreasonable searches in Boston that earned him fame and influenced his countrymen to resist the tyranny of these deprivations.</p> <p>At a trial challenging the constitutionality of the General Writs of Assistance, Otis spoke eloquently and persuasively in favor of freedom from the unreasonable searches being carried out by 18th-century government agents:</p> <blockquote><p>Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.</p> <p>This wanton exercise of this power is not a chimerical suggestion of a heated brain. I will mention some facts. Mr. Pew had one of these writs, and, when Mr. Ware succeeded him, he endorsed this writ over to Mr. Ware; so that these writs are negotiable from one officer to another; and so your Honors have no opportunity of judging the persons to whom this vast power is delegated. Another instance is this: Mr. Justice Walley had called this same Mr. Ware before him, by a constable, to answer for a breach of the Sabbath-day Acts, or that of profane swearing. As soon as he had finished, Mr. Ware asked him if he had done. He replied, “Yes.” “Well then,” said Mr. Ware, “I will show you a little of my power. I command you to permit me to search your house for uncustomed goods” — and went on to search the house from the garret to the cellar; and then served the constable in the same manner.</p></blockquote> <p>In the years prior to the ratification of the Constitution, those later involved in that process already had experience drafting documents to protect these precious liberties from the ever-grasping hand of government.</p> <p>These men abhorred the violence to liberty done by those who were searching their homes and seizing their property without a warrant and on behalf of the Crown and Parliament, believing that “papers are often the dearest property a man can have” and that permitting the government to “sweep away all papers whatsoever,” without any legal justification, “would destroy all the comforts of society.”</p> <p>In 1776, George Mason, the principal author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights — a document of profound influence on the construction of the federal Bill of Rights — upheld the right to be free from such searches, as well:</p> <blockquote><p>That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.</p></blockquote> <p>The federal government relies on state agencies and officers to assist in the collection of data, so the surest way to stop the surveillance and gut the surveillance programs is for states to follow the advice of James Madison and refuse to “cooperate with officers of the union” when their actions exceed the constitutional limits of their authority.</p> <p><strong>EDITOR’S NOTE:</strong> This article was originally published at <em><a href="https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/34166-dhs-to-tell-states-how-to-implement-real-id-requirements" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The New American Magazine</a></em> and reposted here with permission from the author.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> 4th Amendment Court Cases Current Events 4th-amendment fisa NSA Section 702 spying Surveillance United States v. Hasbajrami Joe Wolverton, II Now in Effect: California Law Bans Facial Recognition on Police Body Cameras https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/now-in-effect-california-law-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3d1e594d-7cd1-085b-2908-1e6d16a71315 Wed, 01 Jan 2020 12:01:44 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/now-in-effect-california-law-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" title="Now in Effect: California Law Bans Facial Recognition on Police Body Cameras" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/12/facial-recognition-dec-2019-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/facial-recognition-dec-2019-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/facial-recognition-dec-2019-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/facial-recognition-dec-2019-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/12/facial-recognition-dec-2019-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Jan. 1, 2019) – Today, a new California law banning police from using facial recognition and biometric scanners with police officer cameras for the next three years went into effect. The law has already had a significant practical impact on the surveillance state. Assm. Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) introduced Assembly Bill 1215 (AB1215) [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/now-in-effect-california-law-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" title="Now in Effect: California Law Bans Facial Recognition on Police Body Cameras" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/12/facial-recognition-dec-2019-1280.jpg" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/facial-recognition-dec-2019-1280.jpg 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/facial-recognition-dec-2019-1280-980x551.jpg 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2019/12/facial-recognition-dec-2019-1280-480x270.jpg 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2019/12/facial-recognition-dec-2019-1280-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>SACRAMENTO</strong>, Calif. (Jan. 1, 2019) – Today, a new California law banning police from using facial recognition and biometric scanners with police officer cameras for the next three years went into effect. The law has already had a significant practical impact on the surveillance state.<span id="more-33982"></span></p> <p>Assm. Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) introduced Assembly Bill 1215 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB1215/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">AB1215</a>) last year. The new law prohibits a law enforcement agency or law enforcement official from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer camera. This includes body-worn and handheld devices.</p> <p>Before the final Senate vote, that chamber amended the bill twice to make the provisions temporary. With the initial amendment, the law would have been automatically repealed on Jan. 1, 2027. A second amendment whittled that backed to 2023. So in effect, AB1215 institutes a 3-year ban on facial recognition combined with police officer cameras.</p> <p>On May 9, the Assembly approved the measure by a <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1215/id/862238" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">vote of 45-17</a>. The Senate passed AB1215 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1215/id/891666" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a 22-15 vote</a> over heavy opposition from police around the state. On Sept. 12, the Assembly concurred with the Senate amendment by <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1215/id/893587" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a 47-21 margin</a>. Only three Republicans in both the Assembly and the Senate voted yes on AB1215. With Gov. Newsom’s signature, the new law went into effect on Jan. 1.</p> <p>The law had a major impact before it even went into effect. Last month, San Diego announced it will shut down one of the largest facial recognition programs in the country to comply with AB1215.<span id="more-33900"></span></p> <p>According to <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6573875-SANDAG-Public-Safety-Committee-Dec-20-2019.html#document/p39" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an agenda released by the San Diego Association of Governments</a> (SANDAG), the facial recognition system used by more than 30 agencies will be suspended Jan. 1, 2020. The announcement came after the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sent a letter demanding the shutdown of the massive program to comply with Assembly Bill 1215 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB1215/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">AB1215</a>). Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/signed-as-law-california-bans-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the new law</a> prohibits a law enforcement agency or law enforcement official from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer camera. This includes body-worn and handheld devices.</p> <p>The San Diego facial recognition system was activated in 2012. <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/victory-san-diego-suspend-face-recognition-program-cuts-some-ice-access" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According to EFF</a>, the Tactical Identification System (TACIDS)—provided 1,309 specialized face-recognition tablets and phones to dozens of local, state, and federal agencies. Between 2016 and 2018, officers conducted more than 65,500 scans with the devices. EFF called it “one of the largest, longest-running, and most controversial face recognition programs operated by local law enforcement in the United States.”</p> <p>In a memo, the head of SANDAG’s Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) wrote, “ARJIS will notify all law enforcement partners that TACIDS access will be suspended, which will include removal of the TACIDS Booking Photo interface and all user access to TACIDS systems.”</p> <p>In addition, SANDAG will not renew a contract with its facial recognition vendor, FaceFirst, when it expires in March.</p> <p>The new California law makes up part of a broader nationwide movement to limit this invasive surveillance technology at the local and state level. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/first-in-the-nation-san-francisco-passes-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">San Francisco</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/oakland-city-council-unanimously-approves-ordinance-to-ban-facial-recognition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oakland</a>, and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/four-and-counting-berkeley-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Berkeley</a><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/second-in-the-nation-somerville-city-council-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">.</a> have all prohibited government use of facial recognition technology, along with  <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/second-in-the-nation-somerville-city-council-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Somerville</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/three-and-counting-northampton-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Northhampton</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/brookline-massachusetts-passes-facial-recognition-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brookline</a>, Massachusetts.  <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/portland-oregon-considering-facial-recognition-technology-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Portland, Oregon</a> is considering similar bans. The New York Assembly is considering <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/new-york-assembly-passes-bill-to-ban-facial-recognition-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a bill to ban facial recognition in schools</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/new-york-bill-would-ban-facial-recognition-on-police-body-cameras/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">on police body cameras</a>.</p> <p><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 local ordinances banning facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Facial Recognition State Bills AB1215 body-worn cameras California facial recognition Fourth Amendment Privacy surveillance Mike Maharrey Now in Effect: Texas Law to Facilitate Use of Bullion Depository https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/now-in-effect-texas-law-to-facilitate-use-of-bullion-depository/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f8eb6f4b-cafd-4225-c3db-1c86b1f67d19 Wed, 01 Jan 2020 11:01:42 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/now-in-effect-texas-law-to-facilitate-use-of-bullion-depository/" title="Now in Effect: Texas Law to Facilitate Use of Bullion Depository" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786-768x401.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786-1024x535.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786-1080x564.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />AUSTIN, Texas (Jan. 1, 2020) &#8211; Today, a law went into effect that exempts precious metals stored in the Texas Bullion Depository from certain taxes. Enactment of this law takes another step toward the everyday use of gold and silver in financial transactions in the Lone Star State and sets the stage to undermine the [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/now-in-effect-texas-law-to-facilitate-use-of-bullion-depository/" title="Now in Effect: Texas Law to Facilitate Use of Bullion Depository" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="627" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786.png 1200w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786-300x157.png 300w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786-768x401.png 768w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786-1024x535.png 1024w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786-1080x564.png 1080w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2017/05/shutterstock_2596729-gold-eagle-1200-e1548777851786-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><strong>AUSTIN</strong>, Texas (Jan. 1, 2020) &#8211; Today, a law went into effect that exempts precious metals stored in the Texas Bullion Depository from certain taxes. Enactment of this law takes another step toward the everyday use of gold and silver in financial transactions in the Lone Star State and sets the stage to undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.<span id="more-33979"></span></p> <p>Rep. Giovanni Capriglione (R-Keller) sponsored House Bill 2859 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB2859/2019" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HB2859</a>). Under the new law, “Precious metals are exempt from taxation if they are held in a commercial depository in this state.”</p> <p>HB2859 serves as the enabling legislation for <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/11/texas-voters-approve-state-constitutional-amendment-to-facilitate-use-of-bullion-depository/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a state constitutional amendment that passed in November</a>. The passage of Proposition 9 authorized the Texas legislature to “exempt from ad valorem taxation precious metal held in a precious metal depository located in this state.” Ad valorem taxes are levied on personal property.</p> <p>Prop 9 passed by a 51.7 percent to 48.3 percent margin.</p> <p>The House passed HB2859 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/TX/rollcall/HB2859/id/858692" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a 137-6 vote</a>. The Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/TX/rollcall/HB2859/id/868638" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">passed the measure 27-4</a>. With Gov. Greg Abbott’s signature back on June 5 and the passage of the amendment, the law went into effect Jan. 1.</p> <p>Enactment of HB2859 takes another step forward in facilitating sound money in Texas.</p> <p>Abbot <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/06/signed-by-the-governor-texas-law-establishes-bullion-depository-helps-facilitate-transactions-in-gold-and-silver/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">signed a law</a> creating a state gold bullion and precious metal depository in the summer of 2015. The depository <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/06/07/texas-bullion-depository-open-for-business/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">received its first deposits in the summer of 2018</a>.</p> <p>Ultimately, private individuals and entities will be able to purchase goods and services, using assets in the vault the same way they use cash today. Exemption from taxation of precious metals stored in the vault will further facilitate the use of stored bullion as money. This will help incentivize the use of the Texas Bullion Depository. If they then start allowing checks and debit cards to be used in conjunction with the bullion accounts – likely the next step  – it would essentially create a specie- and bullion-based bank introducing currency competition with Federal Reserve notes.</p> <p>Constitutional tender expert Professor William Greene said when people in multiple states actually start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve Notes, it could create a “<a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/reversing-gresham-good-money-can-drive-out-bad/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reverse Gresham’s effect</a>,” drive out bad money, effectively nullify the Federal Reserve, and end the federal government’s monopoly on money.</p> <blockquote><p>“Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state – as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions.”</p></blockquote> <p>The Texas Bullion Depository also creates an avenue toward financial independence. Countries around the world, including China, Russia and Turkey, <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/axis-of-gold-countries-could-undermine-dollar-dominance-using-yellow-metal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">have been buying gold</a> to limit their dependence on the U.S. dollar. University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus said a state depository can serve a similar function for Texas.</p> <blockquote><p>“This is another in a long line of ways to make Texas more self-reliant and less tethered to the federal government. The financial impact is small but the political impact is telling, Many conservatives are interested in returning to the gold standard and circumvent the Federal reserve in whatever small way they can.”</p></blockquote> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Federal Reserve State Bills HB2859 Prop 9 Texas Texas Bullion Depository Mike Maharrey Illinois Marijuana Legalization Now in Effect Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/illinois-marijuana-legalization-now-in-effect-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:411b0c50-ae98-3fb4-c30f-ddb11c3777c8 Wed, 01 Jan 2020 08:01:11 +0000 <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/illinois-marijuana-legalization-now-in-effect-despite-federal-prohibition/" title="Illinois Marijuana Legalization Now in Effect Despite Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/illinois-flag-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/illinois-flag-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/illinois-flag-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/illinois-flag-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/illinois-flag-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (Jan. 1, 2020) – Today, an Illinois law legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes goes into effect, despite federal prohibition on the same. This is nullification in practice and effect. After a hotly contested end-of-session debate in Illinois last June &#8211; where one pro-prohibition legislator even cracked eggs into a frying pan to show [&#8230;] <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/illinois-marijuana-legalization-now-in-effect-despite-federal-prohibition/" title="Illinois Marijuana Legalization Now in Effect Despite Federal Prohibition" rel="nofollow"><img width="1280" height="720" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/illinois-flag-1280.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/illinois-flag-1280.png 1280w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/illinois-flag-1280-980x551.png 980w, https://3jc9u229pdq31afjhhp0b1lf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2020/01/illinois-flag-1280-480x270.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1280px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/files/2020/01/illinois-flag-1280-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p><b>SPRINGFIELD</b>, Ill. (Jan. 1, 2020) – Today, an Illinois law legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes goes into effect, despite federal prohibition on the same. This is nullification in practice and effect.<span id="more-33987"></span></p> <p>After a hotly contested end-of-session debate in Illinois last June &#8211; where one pro-prohibition legislator even cracked eggs into a frying pan to show your “brain on drugs” &#8211; the <a href="https://legiscan.com/IL/rollcall/HB1438/id/875734" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House of Representatives voted 66-47</a> to legalize recreational possession and commercial sales of marijuana starting on Jan. 1, 2020. The Senate had approved the measure previously by a <a href="https://legiscan.com/IL/rollcall/HB1438/id/874238">vote of 38-17</a>.</p> <p>With the new law going into effect today, Illinois is now the 11th state to legalize cannabis and the first state in which a legislature approved commercial sales. Vermont was the first state to legalize possession through the legislature, but not yet commercial sales. Approval in every other state has been through referendum.</p> <p>Additionally, under the new law nearly 800,000 people with criminal records for purchasing or possessing 30 grams of marijuana or less may have those records expunged. The governor will pardon past convictions for possession of up to 30 grams, with the attorney general going to court to expunge or delete public records of a conviction or arrest. For possession of 30 to 500 grams, an individual or a state’s attorney may petition the court to vacate and expunge the conviction, but prosecutors may object, with a judge to make the final decision.</p> <p>Despite these efforts, the federal government still claims the power to deem marijuana illegal in Illinois, and everywhere else in the U.S.</p> <p><b>TAKING STEPS</b></p> <p>Illinois legislators first passed a law legalizing medical marijuana in 2013. Legalization of recreational marijuana through <a href="https://legiscan.com/IL/bill/HB1438/2019">HB1438</a> now removes another layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, but federal prohibition will remain on the books.</p> <p>However, FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By ending most of the state’s prohibition, Illinois would sweep away a vast majority of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly annual budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution either. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p>With 33 states including allowing cannabis for medical or recreational use today, the feds find themselves in a position where they <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/01/nullification-works-and-they-know-it-good-morning-liberty-01-30-19/">simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore</a>.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, &#8220;No!&#8221; 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> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> Drug War State Bills HB1438 Illinois Legalization Marijuana Michael Boldin Applying the Fourth Amendment’s Original Meaning to Cell Phones and Heat Sensors https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/30/applying-the-fourth-amendments-original-meaning-to-cell-phones-and-heat-sensors/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:c4b072af-764b-7af9-ae78-d15a3d3d8531 Mon, 30 Dec 2019 20:08:36 +0000 <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/30/applying-the-fourth-amendments-original-meaning-to-cell-phones-and-heat-sensors/" title="Applying the Fourth Amendment&#8217;s Original Meaning to Cell Phones and Heat Sensors" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4th-amendment-unreasonable-2.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4th-amendment-unreasonable-2.png 1200w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4th-amendment-unreasonable-2-980x513.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4th-amendment-unreasonable-2-480x251.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1200px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4th-amendment-unreasonable-2-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" />this analysis shows that a proper understanding of the Fourth Amendment can accommodate modern technology, even though that technology was not known at the time. <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/12/30/applying-the-fourth-amendments-original-meaning-to-cell-phones-and-heat-sensors/" title="Applying the Fourth Amendment&#8217;s Original Meaning to Cell Phones and Heat Sensors" rel="nofollow"><img width="1200" height="628" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4th-amendment-unreasonable-2.png" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" alt="" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;max-width: 100%;" link_thumbnail="1" srcset="https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4th-amendment-unreasonable-2.png 1200w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4th-amendment-unreasonable-2-980x513.png 980w, https://tenthamendment-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4th-amendment-unreasonable-2-480x251.png 480w" sizes="(min-width: 0px) and (max-width: 480px) 480px, (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 980px) 980px, (min-width: 981px) 1200px, 100vw" /></a><img width="150" height="150" src="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/4th-amendment-unreasonable-2-150x150.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" /><p>How should the Fourth Amendment’s original meaning be applied to modern technology that was not in existence at the time of the Amendment’s enactment? Many commentators believe this type of question problematic to answer. As Justice Alito quipped some years ago at oral argument, “I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games.” But in the case of the Fourth Amendment, there is a disciplined way to engage in this inquiry. Here I discuss how the matter should work with respect to two recent cases—<em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf">Riley v. California</a></em> (the search of cell phones when a person is arrested) and <em><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/">Kyllo v. U.S</a></em><em>.</em> (the use of heat sensors to determine the temperature inside a home—as a means of discovering whether illegal pot is being grown there).</p> <p><a href="https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/12/06/originalism-the-fourth-amendment-and-new-technology/">In a prior essay</a>, I noted that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has followed neither the text nor the original meaning of the Amendment. In <em>Katz v. United States</em>, the Court held that whether a government action constitutes a search depends on whether it interferes with a reasonable expectation of privacy of an individual. But the Amendment does not speak about privacy or define searches by reasonable expectations of privacy.</p> <p>Instead, the Amendment simply speaks of searches, which had an ordinary meaning at the time of looking “over or through things.” And the covered searches were limited to searches of “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” So whether something is a search is not a matter of reasonableness, but of whether one of those four things is examined.</p> <p>The text of the Amendment does make reasonableness relevant, but only to something that has already been classified as a search. It is unreasonable searches that are prohibited. And the reason that is referred to here is the reason of the common law. Thus, the Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches simply asks whether such searches were allowable under common law.</p> <p>In cases where the existing common law did not provide a clear answer, as with new technology, courts must determine the content of the common law right by deciding the case as a common law judge at the time would have—by considering the existing precedents and values at the time.</p> <p>Let me then apply this approach to <em>Riley</em> and <em>Kyllo</em>.</p> <p>In <em>Riley</em>, the police arrested Riley and sought to search his cell phone without a warrant under the “search incident to an arrest” exception. Under this exception, the police are allowed to search evidence they uncover when making an arrest without having to get a warrant. While this doctrine would normally cover personal property on the arrested person, the Court held that the doctrine could not be used to search a cell phone. The Court reached this result by invoking modern nonoriginalist precedents and balancing the legitimate government interests with an individual’s privacy interests.</p> <p>While the Supreme Court applied nonoriginalist precedents, what would an originalist analysis look like? First, it seems clear that the police are attempting to search of an “effect” (since the phone is movable personal property) and thus within the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protection. The next question is whether the search is a reasonable one. Since the search incident to arrest exception to warrants was part of the common law, originalist analysis suggests that it accords with the Amendment’s original meaning. Searches pursuant to that common law doctrine appear to have been <a href="https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1616/">justified</a> on the grounds that the Supreme Court mentioned in <em>Riley</em>—to prevent destruction of evidence and to protect against violence from the person arrested.</p> <p>The question, then, is how a common law judge at the time would have answered the question whether search of a cell phone fell under the search incident to arrest exception. And while some people will regard this question as unanswerable, I do not. If the reason for the exception (preventing destruction of evidence and protection against violence from the person arrested) is accurate, and if the common law judge understood how cell phones work (which we must assume to answer the question correctly), then I believe there is a strong case that the common law judge would not have extended the search incident to arrest exception to cell phones. Put differently, a common law judge would have recognized that cell phones were quite different than other materials on the suspect’s person and therefore should be treated differently.</p> <p>The reason is that the values underlying the earlier cases apply differently to cell phones. While preventing destruction of evidence and protecting against violence from the person arrested are important concerns as to traditional property on the person of the arrested individual, they are far less important as to a cell phone. Once the cell phone has been seized (but not searched), the possibility that it could cause harm to the police or that the evidence would be destroyed is quite low.</p> <p>By contrast, while privacy interests are weakly implicated in the ordinary situation, since there is only a limited amount of information that can be gleaned from non-digital materials on a person, (even from a wallet), privacy interests are strongly implicated by the search of a cell phone, which has an enormous amount of information about a person, including possibly large collections of pictures, videos, text messages, bank information, emails, and personal files.</p> <p>There is, of course, no certainty that judges at the time would have viewed the matter in this way. It requires us to ask how they would evaluate a type of technology that was completely unknown at the time. But there is little reason to believe that they would have evaluated these basic facts about cell phones any differently than modern judges. If the values identified were the basis of the search incident to arrest exception, as scholars assert, then this does not seem like a problematic judgment.</p> <p>What is interesting here is that this analysis resembles the Supreme Court’s decision in <em>Riley</em>, even though that decision followed nonoriginalist precedent. This is not an isolated example. One of the things that I have learned over my years as an originalist scholar is that the original meaning of a provision is often closer to the nonoriginalist position than I would have imagined. There is no necessary connection here; it just happens more often than one might expect.</p> <p>Now, let me turn to the other Supreme Court case, <em>Kyllo v. U.S.</em>, where the police used a heat sensor, along with other information, to obtain a warrant. The question is whether aiming the infrared heat sensor at the outside walls of a home amounted to a search of the home. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, but applied the nonoriginalist <em>Katz</em> reasonable expectations of privacy test. He concluded that individuals had a reasonable expectation of privacy against use of the heat sensors to obtain information from a house.</p> <p>While Scalia applied a nonoriginalist test, what would the originalist analysis look like? The first question is whether this is a search of a house. If it is search, it is certainly of a house. But is it a search? Here the analysis is a little complicated but in the end seems to suggest there is a search. One possibility is that examining the outside walls of a house is a search because that is “examining” part of the house and that accords with the ordinary meaning of the term at the time. It might be argued, however, that this is not a search because the outside of the house is in public and simply looking at something in public is not a search. But even if one accepts this latter argument, one might still conclude that it is a search because the police are using special equipment to examine the outside of the house. Thus, what they are examining is not open to all people in the public.</p> <p>The next question, then, is whether the search is unreasonable. One must ask how a common law judge at the time would have decided the case. Since thermal imaging was not employed at the time of the Constitution, one must engage in an independent analysis. Once again, the nonoriginalist arguments used by the majority and dissent seem quite helpful.</p> <p>That the thermal imaging reveals information that is occurring inside the home seems to strongly indicate that it is an unreasonable search absent a warrant. If a common law judge would have placed strong emphasis on the importance of privacy within the home, which seems quite likely, that is a strong argument for the unreasonableness of the search. There is a moderately strong argument, however, on the other side. The thermal imaging only revealed very rudimentary information about what was occurring inside the house—information about the heat being emitted. While some judges might have used this fact to conclude that the thermal imaging is not unreasonable, my judgement is that it is more likely that a common law judge of the time would view the thermal imaging as being an unreasonable search, since it was an infringement on an area that was traditionally protected.</p> <p>In the end, this analysis shows that a proper understanding of the Fourth Amendment can accommodate modern technology, even though that technology was not known at the time. The analysis does require a limited common law type reasoning, but that is what the original meaning requires.</p> <div class='ctx-subscribe-container ctx-personalization-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-social-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span> 4th Amendment 4th-amendment Cell Phones Heat Sensors Originalism Michael Rappaport