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/ It’s all Theater: Federal Funding of Local Police https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/its-all-theater-federal-funding-of-local-police/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:47bfc373-cc57-05c2-9638-a7b3e363465e Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:48:05 +0000 <p>One side claims the other is trying to “defund” or “abolish” police, while the other is actively trying to double federal funding - which, of course, comes with federal strings and federal priorities. But they’re all full of it - the feds shouldn’t be involved in local policing in the first place.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/its-all-theater-federal-funding-of-local-police/">It’s all Theater: Federal Funding of Local Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>One side claims the other is trying to “defund” or “abolish” police, while the other is actively trying to double federal funding &#8211; which, of course, comes with federal strings and federal priorities. But they’re all full of it &#8211; the feds shouldn’t be involved in local policing in the first place.</p> <p>Path to Liberty. Fast Friday Edition: July 30, 2021 <span id="more-37822"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/qi8IT9zf5KU" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p>Tweets: <a href="https://twitter.com/RepJimBanks/status/1407858355440324610" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Banks</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1407796277983813636" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Cruz</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/SenJohnKennedy/status/1420755060158390279" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Kennedy</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/05/winning-strategy-for-liberty-the-marijuana-story-and-why-its-important/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Winning Strategy for Liberty: The Marijuana Story and Why it’s Important</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/26/pres-biden-wants-to-boost-funding-for-national-police-state/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Pres. Biden Wants to Boost Funding for National Police State</a></p> <p><a href="https://stephensemler.substack.com/p/biden-doubles-funding-for-police" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Biden doubles funding for police hiring program</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/25/federal-grant-program-nationalizes-local-policing/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Federal Grant Program Nationalizes Local Policing</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/tucker-view-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-with-selected-writings" rel="noopener" target="_blank">St. George Tucker &#8211; View of the Constitution of the United States (1803)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/elliot-the-debates-in-the-several-state-conventions-vol-2" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Williams &#8211; New York Ratifying Convention (21 June 1788) </a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072821:7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1267175067107098624" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/top-7-ways-they-spy-on-you-610199886625c4d04e128127" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="//www.brighteon.com/2173107c-2d76-4638-ac47-a2a7098ea0e7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/71ldEFft4v/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/QA5HIXH0nxJ6/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/6168385a-e4b7-4929-974c-cff865138659" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CR4VM8_r_LD/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/3f1376a4-5d66-4cab-b64c-a8fa99ec018c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1420421354923315202" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/its-all-theater-federal-funding-of-local-police/">It’s all Theater: Federal Funding of Local Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Path to Liberty Police Republocrats COPS Program Federal Funding of Police Joe Biden police powers Police-State Ted Cruz Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 14:37 One side claims the other is trying to “defund” or “abolish” police, while the other is actively trying to double federal funding - which, of course, comes with federal strings and federal priorities. But they’re all full of it - the feds shouldn’t be ... One side claims the other is trying to “defund” or “abolish” police, while the other is actively trying to double federal funding - which, of course, comes with federal strings and federal priorities. But they’re all full of it - the feds shouldn’t be involved in local policing in the first place.<br /> True Civil Libertarians Must Oppose the IRS https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/30/true-civil-libertarians-must-oppose-the-irs/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:22553e71-d0dc-d89e-d802-2ef577166c4f Fri, 30 Jul 2021 12:24:41 +0000 <p>Progressives who work to end individual rights violations committed by the NSA, FBI, DEA, CIA, and other federal agencies usually overlook, or even support, the routine violations of Americans’ rights by the IRS.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/30/true-civil-libertarians-must-oppose-the-irs/">True Civil Libertarians Must Oppose the IRS</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>Progressives who work to end individual rights violations committed by the NSA, FBI, DEA, CIA, and other federal agencies usually overlook, or even support, the routine violations of Americans’ rights by the IRS.<span id="more-36499"></span></p> <p>For example, progressives rarely, if ever, speak out against the IRS’s targeting of the opponents of those in power. When liberal Democrats control the White House, the IRS targets advocates of free markets. When hawkish Republicans are in power, the IRS targets antiwar activists.</p> <p>The Democrats’ election reform legislation would require political organizations to divulge their top donors. Such donor disclosure requirements can be, and have been, used to intimidate donors from supporting “controversial” causes. Yet the requirements are supported by many progressives in the name of getting big money out of politics.</p> <p>In order to “pay for” their massive spending schemes, President Biden and his congressional allies are planning a huge increase in the IRS budget. The declared purpose is to enable the tax agency to bring in to the government much more money by ramping up efforts to identify and punish those not paying the “proper” amount of taxes.</p> <p>The tax code’s complexity guarantees many innocent Americans will be caught in the IRS’s expanded net. Yet progressives will support this because they favor the new social programs the new revenue will finance, and because they believe the IRS will only target billionaires and big corporations.</p> <p>The truth is that most of the new revenue will be collected from middle-and-working-class Americans. These Americans will be targeted because, unlike billionaires and big corporations, middle-and-working-class Americans cannot afford legions of tax lawyers and accountants to level the playing field between them and the tax agency. They are more likely to simply give in to the IRS’s demands.</p> <p>Waiters and waitresses may even be subjected to audits to ensure they are paying taxes on their tips.</p> <p>Another frightening proposal is for the government to impose a “mileage tax” to fund highway construction. A mileage tax would require government to keep track of how many miles every American drives. Some claim that a mileage tax can be implemented without creating a massive new system of government surveillance. Even If this were true, anyone who expects the government not to use this new power for nefarious purposes needs to Google Edward Snowden.</p> <p>Progressives’ blind spot toward IRS abuses of liberty is rooted in their belief that one can separate “economic” liberties from “civil” liberties. This allows them to support an abusive tax system to fund a welfare state (and, for an increasing number of progressives, a warfare state) while opposing other infringements on liberty. These progressives are the mirror image of conservatives who defend economic liberty while supporting government infringements on personal lifestyle choices.</p> <p>One of the most urgent tasks of those who wish to restore a free society in all areas is to end the artificial distinction between economic and civil liberties. By defending all liberty — no matter if it is classified as economic liberty or civil liberty — we can best protect against violations of any liberties.</p> <p><em>Copyright © 2021 by <a href="http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/july/12/true-civil-libertarians-must-oppose-the-irs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">RonPaul Institute</a>. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.</em></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/30/true-civil-libertarians-must-oppose-the-irs/">True Civil Libertarians Must Oppose the IRS</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Current Events IRS irs Progressives Taxation Ron Paul Why Do We Car What This Guy Says? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/why-do-we-car-what-this-guy-says/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:78a877f4-1d14-c22b-e8fd-5b77a844f05a Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:02:36 +0000 <p>Eight times a year, the Federal Reserve holds a meeting. Markets react wildly to the messaging coming out of these central bank gatherings, especially to what the Fed chairman says.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/why-do-we-car-what-this-guy-says/">Why Do We Car What This Guy Says?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Eight times a year, the Federal Reserve holds a meeting. Markets react wildly to the messaging coming out of these central bank gatherings, especially to what the Fed chairman says.</p> <p>This raises a question: why do we care so much about what a bunch of politically connected bankers has to say?</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Letting a bunch of politically-connected central bankers have so much power over the entire economy &#8211; isn&#39;t a really good idea. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/endthefed?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#endthefed</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/economy?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#economy</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://t.co/0uEjGVintg">pic.twitter.com/0uEjGVintg</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1420475395191697410?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 28, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/28/how-the-national-bank-destroyed-the-limits-of-constitution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How the National Bank Destroyed the Limits of the Constitution</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/17/the-federal-reserve-the-engine-that-powers-the-most-powerful-government-in-history/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Federal Reserve: The Engine that Powers the Most Powerful Government in History</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/18/the-constitutionality-of-a-national-bank-hamilton-vs-jefferson/">The Constitutionality of a National Bank: Hamilton vs. Jefferson</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/why-do-we-car-what-this-guy-says/">Why Do We Car What This Guy Says?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Federal Reserve Maharrey Minute Constitution End the Fed Jerome Powell National Bank Mike Maharrey Why Do We Care What This Guy Says? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/why-do-we-car-what-this-guy-says/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:c18123fa-fad9-c97f-037d-3bdf47e3c200 Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:02:36 +0000 <p>Eight times a year, the Federal Reserve holds a meeting. Markets react wildly to the messaging coming out of these central bank gatherings, especially to what the Fed chairman says.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/why-do-we-car-what-this-guy-says/">Why Do We Care What This Guy Says?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Eight times a year, the Federal Reserve holds a meeting. Markets react wildly to the messaging coming out of these central bank gatherings, especially to what the Fed chairman says.</p> <p>This raises a question: why do we care so much about what a bunch of politically connected bankers has to say?</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Letting a bunch of politically-connected central bankers have so much power over the entire economy &#8211; isn&#39;t a really good idea. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/endthefed?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#endthefed</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/economy?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#economy</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://t.co/0uEjGVintg">pic.twitter.com/0uEjGVintg</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1420475395191697410?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 28, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/28/how-the-national-bank-destroyed-the-limits-of-constitution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How the National Bank Destroyed the Limits of the Constitution</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/17/the-federal-reserve-the-engine-that-powers-the-most-powerful-government-in-history/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Federal Reserve: The Engine that Powers the Most Powerful Government in History</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/18/the-constitutionality-of-a-national-bank-hamilton-vs-jefferson/">The Constitutionality of a National Bank: Hamilton vs. Jefferson</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/why-do-we-car-what-this-guy-says/">Why Do We Care What This Guy Says?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Federal Reserve Maharrey Minute Constitution End the Fed Jerome Powell National Bank Mike Maharrey Fighting the Urban Surveillance Infrastructure https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/fighting-the-urban-surveillance-infrastructure/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:86778d22-de60-9149-581f-e737b4e24ca4 Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:36:42 +0000 <p>The government uses a vast multi-layered system of surveillance to keep tabs on people. From cell phones to traffic cameras - big brother is always watching (and listening). It is also generally believed that there is collusion between the government and big tech.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/fighting-the-urban-surveillance-infrastructure/">Fighting the Urban Surveillance Infrastructure</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>The government uses a vast multi-layered system of surveillance to keep tabs on people. From cell phones to traffic cameras &#8211; big brother is always watching (and listening). It is also generally believed that there is collusion between the government and big tech.</p> <p>So what do we do about it?<span id="more-37731"></span></p> <p>In <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/06/graphic-overlapping-infrastructure-urban-surveillance-and-how-fix-it" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an article published recently by the Electronic Freedom Foundation</a>, Matthew Guariglia discussed various methods of surveillance and suggested some ways that citizens can push back.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;if you could take a cross-section of the average city block, you would see the ways that the built environment of surveillance—its physical presence in, over, and under our cities—makes this an entwined problem that must be combatted through entwined solutions.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Included in that environment of surveillance are the following methods:</p> <ul> <li>Satellite surveillance &#8211; Can be used for reconnaissance by intelligence &amp; military, and can allow governments to intercept or listen in on data transmitted internationally.</li> <li>Internet traffic surveillance &#8211; The NSA uses programs like PRISM and XKEYSCORE to monitor emails, search history and keystrokes in real time.</li> <li>Cellular communication (tower) surveillance &#8211; Information collected by telecom companies including metadata, locations, text/call content that can be acquired by police and govt with a warrant.</li> <li>Drones &#8211; Can spy on protests and people just going about their daily lives, from a distance.</li> <li>Social media surveillance &#8211; Mass collection of information. Police also use it to infiltrate protest organizing and political groups online.</li> <li>Cameras &#8211; Includes facial recognition technology and networked surveillance cameras that collect information on communities.</li> <li>Surveillance of cell phones &#8211; The government has various ways of collecting stored information, including just buying it commercially.</li> <li>Automated license plate readers &#8211; ALPR technology can be used to target drivers who visit sensitive places including immigration centers, places of worship, protests, and gun shops.</li> <li>Acoustic gunshot detection &#8211; The tech detects loud noises and triangulates where they come from, but that&#8217;s not all. It can record other things, such as voices, and is unfortunately prone to false reports.</li> <li>Internet-connected security cameras &#8211; Doorbell cameras, for example, can record footage that is more easily accessible to the police because they can skip the user and go straight to the company with a warrant.</li> <li>Electronic monitoring &#8211; A form of digital incarceration that can monitor where you are at all times.</li> <li>Police GPS tracking &#8211; Police can track individuals by installing GPS on their vehicles.</li> <li>International internet traffic surveillance &#8211; Police and government use underground fiber optic cable to surveil communication between here and abroad.</li> </ul> <p>Some of the suggestions on tackling the surveillance behemoth included; protecting our internet security through <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/01/new-bill-would-make-needed-steps-toward-curbing-mass-surveillance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FISA reform</a>, limiting police acquisition of drones and military equipment through<a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/community-control-police-spy-tech" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> CCOP programs</a> that give communities oversight over surveillance technology, and also by using encryption.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Using encrypted communication apps, such as Signal, or leaving your cell phone at home when attending political demonstrations are some ways to prevent [cellular tower] surveillance.&#8221; Also,</p> <p><a href="https://support.ring.com/hc/en-us/articles/360054941551-How-to-Set-Up-Video-End-to-End-Encryption-E2EE-">&#8220;Opting in to encrypt your Amazon Ring footage</a> and opting out of seeing police footage requests on the Neighbors app are two ways to ensure police have to <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/02/amazon-rings-end-end-encryption-what-it-means">bring a warrant to you</a>, rather than Amazon, if they think your camera may have witnessed a crime.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Another method, and one of our main tactics here at the Tenth Amendment Center, is to support state and local legislation to limit surveillance. For example, the <a href="https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/lieu-wyden-daines-and-mcclintock-introduce-bipartisan-legislation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cell Site Simulator Warrant Act</a> would &#8220;defend Americans’ rights by requiring the government to get a warrant to deploy cell-site simulators, also known as “stingray” devices, which are used by law enforcement agencies to track individuals and identify all the phones in an area.&#8221;</p> <p>Many states tackled issues of surveillance in the 2021 legislative session with bills like the Virginia ban on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/to-the-governor-virginia-passes-de-facto-ban-on-facial-recognition-surveillance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facial Recognition software</a>, and others such as <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/kansas-bill-would-limit-warrantless-surveillance-of-private-property/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this one</a> in Kansas that would limit warrantless surveillance of private property.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Legislation can (also) curb mass surveillance of our public thoughts and interactions on social media by requiring police to have reasonable suspicion before conducting social media surveillance on individuals, groups, or hashtags. Also, police should be barred from using phony accounts to sneak into closed-access social media groups, absent a warrant.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/fighting-the-urban-surveillance-infrastructure/">Fighting the Urban Surveillance Infrastructure</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Surveillance biometric surveillance Encryption Facial Recognition Software NSA Surveillance Police surveillance Amanda Bowers Now in Effect: Arkansas Law Prohibits Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control on Firearms Made in the State https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-arkansas-law-prohibits-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control-on-firearms-made-in-the-state/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d68e36e3-d382-0955-fb05-4fbb1743f911 Thu, 29 Jul 2021 12:06:23 +0000 <p>Titled the "Intrastate Firearms Protection Act, SB 59 declares firearms manufactured in Arkansas are not subject to some federal laws and regulations.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-arkansas-law-prohibits-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control-on-firearms-made-in-the-state/">Now in Effect: Arkansas Law Prohibits Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control on Firearms Made in the State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>LITTLE ROCK</strong>, Ark. (July 29, 2021) &#8211; Yesterday, a law banning state officials from enforcing future federal firearms laws on guns manufactured and kept within the state of Arkansas. How the law plays out in practice will largely depend on human action.<span id="more-37265"></span></p> <p>Sen. Bob Ballinger (R) introduced Senate Bill 59 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/bill/SB59/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB59</a>) back in January. Unlike more common Second Amendment Protection Acts, this law rests primarily on the commerce clause. Titled the &#8220;Intrastate Firearms Protection Act, SB 59 declares firearms manufactured in Arkansas are not subject to some federal laws and regulations.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;A personal firearm, a firearms accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Arkansas and that remains within the borders of Arkansas is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce, as those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>The law also bans state and federal agents from enforcing future gun laws &#8220;relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that <strong>is owned or manufactured</strong> commercially or privately in Arkansas so long as the personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition is within the borders of Arkansas.&#8221;</p> <p>By including &#8220;owned OR manufactured&#8221; in Arkansas in the language, the law technically bars the enforcement of any future federal gun control within the borders of the state since <strong>all</strong> firearms <strong>owned</strong> within Arkansas fall under the law.</p> <p>Any person, including a federal agent, who violates the law is subject to Class A Misdemeanor charges.</p> <p>The Senate passed SB59 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/SB59/id/1043070" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a 28-7 vote</a>, and the House approved the measure <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/SB59/id/1054208" target="_blank" rel="noopener">74-18</a>. With Gov. Hutchinson&#8217;s signature, the law went into effect on July 28.</p> <p>SB59 will work together with <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-arkansas-bill-might-end-state-enforcement-of-some-future-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a second bill signed by Hutchinson</a> that <strong>could</strong> prohibit enforcement of some future federal gun control,</p> <p><strong>IN PRACTICE</strong></p> <p>The state can legally punish state officers for violating the law, but prosecuting federal agents will be problematic.</p> <p>Under federal statutes, any case involving a federal agent acting within the scope of his or her official duties <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqF4zyY2Kd8&amp;list=PLZyloySS5-JSG8epr6kvgfSibXxwWVUZa&amp;index=16">gets removed to federal court</a>. In other words, the current structure of the legal system makes it virtually impossible to prosecute a federal agent in state court. Lawyers for the charged federal agent would immediately make a motion to remove the case to a federal district court under <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj89u-EiIrYAhWKTSYKHfGGBSQQFggpMAA&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2Ftext%2F28%2F1442&amp;usg=AOvVaw2koNNAHVDjbbncXt0drNQ0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)</a>. Unless the state judge refused to comply, the case would then be out of state hands.</p> <p>Nevertheless, the threat of arrest would create problems for federal agents trying to enforce unconstitutional gun laws in Arkansas and would certainly gum up the works even if they were never prosecuted. The question is whether or not local law enforcement will be willing to enforce the law on federal officials.</p> <p>More broadly speaking, the impact this new law will have in practice will largely depend on how Arkansas residents and law enforcement officers treat the law. If large numbers of Arkansans take advantage of the law and manufacture firearms within the borders of the state for sale within the state, the federal government would have a hard time enforcing future laws on Arkansas gun owners.</p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p>But if only a handful of Arkansas take action under the law and the state refuses to stand behind its own law, it could prove disastrous. This was the case in Kansas.</p> <p>SB59 is similar to a law passed in Kansas in 2013. Two men took action under that state law and paid a high price. Shane Cox manufactured and sold a silencer without paying applicable federal licensing fees and taxes thinking he was protected by the state law. Jeremy Kettler bought and used the silencer. The feds came down hard on them and the state refused to act.</p> <p>When Cox and Kettler were arrested by federal agents, Attorney Derek General Schmidt refused to take action against the federal agents and refused to intervene in the federal court case despite the urging of Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and many others. Cox and Kettler were found guilty in a jury trial on Nov. 14, 2016.</p> <p>Ultimately, if things play out like they did in Kansas where only one or two people take action&#8230;and law enforcement helps the feds&#8230;it&#8217;ll be problematic.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-arkansas-law-prohibits-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control-on-firearms-made-in-the-state/">Now in Effect: Arkansas Law Prohibits Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control on Firearms Made in the State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Uncategorized Arkansas Commerce Clause Federal Gun Control Firearms Freedom Act Right to Keep and Bear Arms SB59 Mike Maharrey Just Because They Can Doesn’t Mean They Should https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/just-because-they-can-doesnt-mean-they-should/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:3b71e3f8-6fcb-1b42-117e-f46194195595 Wed, 28 Jul 2021 20:29:14 +0000 <p>Just because I point out that a government has a certain power doesn't necessarily mean I think it should use it.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/just-because-they-can-doesnt-mean-they-should/">Just Because They Can Doesn’t Mean They Should</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Just because I point out that a government has a certain power doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean I think it should use it.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Just because a government CAN do something, doesn&#39;t mean it should. And most of the time, it shouldn&#39;t. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/politics?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#politics</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://t.co/iaK3GS9bVr">pic.twitter.com/iaK3GS9bVr</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1420055363051671554?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 27, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-commerce-clause/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Commerce Clause</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/the-war-on-drugs-unconstitutional-since-day-one/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The War on Drugs: Unconstitutional Since Day One</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/just-because-they-can-doesnt-mean-they-should/">Just Because They Can Doesn’t Mean They Should</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute Commerce Clause Constitution government power Mike Maharrey Top-7 Ways they Spy on You https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/top-7-ways-they-spy-on-you/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f99b9f52-0aa5-c9c7-b696-de0f9a6ccb5a Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:51:19 +0000 <p>Federal, state, local - internet, cell phones, social, acoustics, and more - tracking the top ways they track whatever you do.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/top-7-ways-they-spy-on-you/">Top-7 Ways they Spy on You</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Federal, state, local &#8211; internet, cell phones, social, acoustics, and more &#8211; tracking the top ways they track whatever you do. </p> <p>Path to Liberty: July 28, 2021 <span id="more-37813"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/NyquHIdsbhQ?start=44" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/brutus-v/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Brutus No. 5 (13 Dec 1787)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.founderoftheday.com/founder-of-the-day/brutus-v" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Founder of the Day &#8211; The Abuse of Necessary and Proper &#8211; Brutus V</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.taraross.com/post/the-anti-federalist-papers-brutus-v" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Tara Ross: Brutus V</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072621:5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1266449997566603264" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/infinite-and-incomprehensible-antifederalist-brutus-no-60fef5ef6625c4d04e11c87d" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072621:5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/29b16421-ba65-41ae-b013-10599cd6797b" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/v/RB4rGZLW/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/Mq9mNm9pBT98/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/f15d350d-caeb-4725-b929-5f24d73e41de" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CRzKmv4tJlG/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/1bdce2b5-e3eb-470b-9412-c3dee8e67bc0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1419696434673197060" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter/show/60fef9a99af9cd568adca130" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on MeWe</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6825485013249855489" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/top-7-ways-they-spy-on-you/">Top-7 Ways they Spy on You</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Path to Liberty Surveillance EFF Privacy Spying surveillance Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 38:59 Federal, state, local - internet, cell phones, social, acoustics, and more - tracking the top ways they track whatever you do. Federal, state, local - internet, cell phones, social, acoustics, and more - tracking the top ways they track whatever you do. <br /> Authoritarians Drunk on Power https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/28/authoritarians-drunk-on-power/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:53fe2320-2cb3-cc5b-4d51-493f75dbc551 Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:48:36 +0000 <p>Most of all, use your power - and there is power in our numbers - to nullify anything and everything the government does that undermines the freedom principles on which this nation was founded.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/28/authoritarians-drunk-on-power/">Authoritarians Drunk on Power</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>It is time to recalibrate the government.</p> <p>For years now, we have suffered the injustices, cruelties, corruption and abuse of an entrenched government bureaucracy that has no regard for the Constitution or the rights of the citizenry.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>We are overdue for a systemic check on the government’s overreaches and power grabs.</p> <p>We have lingered too long in this strange twilight zone where ego trumps justice, propaganda perverts truth, and imperial presidents—empowered to indulge their authoritarian tendencies by legalistic courts, corrupt legislatures and a disinterested, distracted populace—rule by fiat rather than by the rule of law.</p> <p>This COVID-19 pandemic has provided the government with the perfect excuse to lay claim to a long laundry list of terrifying lockdown powers (at both the federal and state level) that override the Constitution: the ability to suspend the Constitution, indefinitely detain American citizens, bypass the courts, quarantine whole communities or segments of the population, override the First Amendment by outlawing religious gatherings and assemblies of more than a few people, shut down entire industries and manipulate the economy, muzzle dissidents, reshape financial markets, create a digital currency (and thus further restrict the use of cash), determine who should live or die, and impose health mandates on large segments of the population.</p> <p>These kinds of crises tend to bring out the authoritarian tendencies in government.</p> <p>That’s no surprise: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.</p> <p>Where we find ourselves now is in the unenviable position of needing to rein in all three branches of government—the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative—that have exceeded their authority and grown drunk on power.</p> <p>This is exactly the kind of concentrated, absolute power the founders attempted to guard against by establishing a system of checks of balances that separate and shares power between three co-equal branches: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.</p> <p>“The system of checks and balances that the Framers envisioned now lacks effective checks and is no longer in balance,” <a href="http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/marshall.pdf">concludes law professor William P. Marshall</a>. “The implications of this are serious. The Framers designed a system of separation of powers to combat government excess and abuse and to curb incompetence. They also believed that, in the absence of an effective separation-of-powers structure, such ills would inevitably follow. Unfortunately, however, power once taken is not easily surrendered.”</p> <p>Unadulterated power in any branch of government is a menace to freedom.</p> <p>There’s no point debating which political party would be <em>more</em> dangerous with these powers.</p> <p>The fact that any individual—or branch of government—of any political persuasion is empowered to act like a dictator is danger enough.</p> <p>So what we can do to wrest back control over a runaway government and an imperial presidency?</p> <p>It won’t be easy.</p> <p>We are the unwitting victims of a system so corrupt that those who stand up for the rule of law and aspire to transparency in government are in the minority.</p> <p>This corruption is so vast it spans all branches of government: from the power-hungry agencies under the executive branch and the corporate puppets within the legislative branch to a judiciary that is, more often than not, elitist and biased towards government entities and corporations.</p> <p>We are ruled by an elite class of individuals who are completely out of touch with the travails of the average American.</p> <p>We are viewed as relatively expendable in the eyes of government: faceless numbers of individuals who serve one purpose, which is to keep the government machine running through our labor and our tax dollars. Those in power aren’t losing any sleep over the indignities we are being made to suffer or the possible risks to our health. All they seem to care about are power and control.</p> <p>We are being made to suffer countless abuses at the government’s hands.</p> <p>We have little protection against standing armies (domestic and military), <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/30/16571226/nsa-surveillance-reform-702-burr-wyden-goodlatte">invasive surveillance</a>, marauding SWAT teams, an overwhelming government arsenal of assault vehicles and firepower, and a barrage of laws that criminalize everything from vegetable gardens to lemonade stands.</p> <p>In the name of national security, we’re being subjected to government agencies such as the NSA, FBI and others listening in on our phone calls, reading our mail, monitoring our emails, and carrying out warrantless “black bag” searches of our homes. Adding to the abuse, we have to deal with surveillance cameras mounted on street corners and in traffic lights, weather satellites co-opted for use as spy cameras from space, and thermal sensory imaging devices that can detect heat and movement through the walls of our homes.</p> <p>That doesn’t even begin to touch on the many ways in which our Fourth Amendment rights are trampled upon by militarized police and SWAT teams empowered to act as laws unto themselves.</p> <p>In other words, freedom—or what’s left of it—is threatened from every direction.</p> <p>The predators of the police state are wreaking havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives. The government doesn’t listen to the citizenry, it refuses to abide by the Constitution, which is our rule of law, and it treats the citizenry as a source of funding and little else. Police officers are shooting unarmed citizens and their household pets. Government agents—including local police—are being armed to the teeth and encouraged to act like soldiers on a battlefield. Bloated government agencies are fleecing taxpayers. Government technicians are spying on our emails and phone calls. Government contractors are making a killing by waging endless wars abroad.</p> <p>In other words, the American police state is alive and well and flourishing.</p> <p>Nothing has changed, and nothing will change unless we insist on it.</p> <p>We have arrived at the <a href="http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/v-for-vendetta/253752/v-for-vendetta-10-years-later-closer-to-evey-s-future">dystopian future depicted in the 2005 film <em>V for Vendetta</em></a>, which is no future at all.</p> <p>Set in the year 2020, <em>V for Vendetta</em> (written and produced by the Wachowskis) provides an eerie glimpse into a parallel universe in which a government-engineered virus wreaks havoc on the world. Capitalizing on the people’s fear, a totalitarian government comes to power that knows all, sees all, controls everything and promises safety and security above all.</p> <p>Concentration camps (jails, private prisons and detention facilities) have been established to house political prisoners and others deemed to be enemies of the state. Executions of undesirables (extremists, troublemakers and the like) are common, while other enemies of the state are made to “disappear.” Populist uprisings and protests are met with extreme force. The television networks are controlled by the government with the purpose of perpetuating the regime. And most of the population is hooked into an entertainment mode and are clueless.</p> <p>Sounds painfully familiar, doesn’t it?</p> <p>As director James McTeighe observed about the tyrannical regime in <em>V for Vendetta</em>, “It really showed what can happen when society is ruled by government, rather than the government being run as a voice of the people. I don’t think it’s such a big leap to say things like that can happen when leaders stop listening to the people.”</p> <p>Clearly, our leaders have stopped listening to the American people.</p> <p>We are—and have been for some time—the unwitting victims of a system so corrupt that those who stand up for the rule of law and aspire to transparency in government are in the minority. This corruption is so vast it spans all branches of government—from the power-hungry agencies under the executive branch and the corporate puppets within the legislative branch to a judiciary that is, more often than not, elitist and biased towards government entities and corporations.</p> <p>We are ruled by an elite class of individuals who are completely out of touch with the travails of the average American. We are relatively expendable in the eyes of government—faceless numbers of individuals who serve one purpose, which is to keep the government machine running through our labor and our tax dollars.</p> <p>What will it take for the government to <em>start</em> listening to the people again?</p> <p>In <em>V for Vendetta</em>, as in my new novel <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Erik-Blair-Diaries-Battlefield-Dead/dp/1954968027/"><em>The Erik Blair Diaries</em></a>, it takes an act of terrorism for the people to finally mobilize and stand up to the government’s tyranny: in <em>Vendetta</em>, V the film’s masked crusader blows up the seat of government, while in <em>Erik Blair</em>, freedom fighters plot to unmask the Deep State.</p> <p>These acts of desperation and outright anarchy are what happens when a parasitical government muzzles the citizenry, fences them in, herds them, brands them, whips them into submission, forces them to ante up the sweat of their brows while giving them little in return, and then provides them with little to no outlet for voicing their discontent: people get desperate, citizens lose hope, and lawful, nonviolent resistance gives way to unlawful, violent resistance.</p> <p>This way lies madness.</p> <p>Then again, this madness may be unavoidable unless we can wrest back control over our runaway government starting at the local level.</p> <p>How to do this? It’s not rocket science.</p> <p>There is no 10-step plan. If there were a 10-step plan, however, the first step would be as follows: turn off the televisions, tune out the politicians, and do your part to stand up for freedom principles in your own communities.</p> <p>Stand up for your own rights, of course, but more importantly, stand up for the rights of those with whom you might disagree. Defend freedom at all costs. Defend justice at all costs. Make no exceptions based on race, religion, creed, politics, immigration status, sexual orientation, etc. Vote like Americans, for a change, not Republicans or Democrats.</p> <p>Most of all, use your power &#8211; and there is power in our numbers &#8211; to nullify anything and everything the government does that undermines the freedom principles on which this nation was founded.</p> <p>Don’t play semantics. Don’t justify. Don’t politicize it. If it carries even a whiff of tyranny, oppose it. Demand that your representatives in government cut you a better deal, one that abides by the Constitution and doesn’t just attempt to sidestep it.</p> <p>That’s their job: make them do it.</p> <p>As I make clear in my book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-America-War-American-People/dp/1590793099"><em>Battlefield America: The War on the American People</em></a>, all freedoms hang together. They fall together, as well.</p> <p>The police state does not discriminate. Eventually, we will all suffer the same fate.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/28/authoritarians-drunk-on-power/">Authoritarians Drunk on Power</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Current Events Federal Power centralization Consolidation Police State power Surveillance John Whitehead Now in Effect: Arkansas Law Creats Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-arkansas-law-creats-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:5715d5ef-fc3c-409f-e75d-16d57c7b9aff Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:34:38 +0000 <p>This process could set the stage to nullify some executive orders, but without further action, it will have no practical impact.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-arkansas-law-creats-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/">Now in Effect: Arkansas Law Creats Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>LITTLE ROCK</strong>, Ark. (July 28, 2021) – Today, an Arkansas law went into effect that creates a mechanism to review presidential executive orders and potentially end state cooperation with enforcement of certain EOs determined to violate the U.S. Constitution. This process could set the stage to nullify some executive orders, but without further action, it will have no practical impact.<span id="more-37698"></span></p> <p>Rep. DeAnn Vaught (R-Horatio), along with 43 fellow Republican cosponsors, introduced House Bill 1637 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/bill/HB1637/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1637</a>) on March 4. Under the new law, the Joint Budget Committee (during the legislative session) or the Legislative Council (during the interim) <em>may  </em>“review <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/12/whats-the-deal-with-executive-orders/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an executive order</a> issued by the President of the United States that has not been affirmed by a vote of the United States Congress and signed into law as prescribed by the United States Constitution.” The review process is complex and will involve an appropriate standing committee in the legislature along with the state attorney general.</p> <p>Ultimately, the law prohibits the state, a political subdivision, or any entity that receives an appropriation of funds from the General Assembly from using state resources and personnel to implement a presidential executive order <em>if</em> there is a determination that EO is unconstitutional, approved by an affirmative vote by the Legislative Council, or the Joint Budget Committee. The governor will then have to direct state agencies to cease implementation of the executive order.</p> <p>The law covers federal EOs that relate to any of the following:</p> <ul> <li>Pandemics or other health emergencies</li> <li>The regulation of natural resources, including coal and oil</li> <li>The regulation of the agriculture industry</li> <li>The use of land</li> <li>The regulation of the financial sector as it relates to environmental, social, or governance standards</li> <li>The regulation of the constitutional right to bear arms</li> </ul> <p>The Senate passed HB1637 <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/HB1637/id/1043006" target="_blank" rel="noopener">by a 27-7 vote</a>. The House <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/HB1637/id/1031406" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed the measure by a 75-22 vote</a>. With Gov. Asa Hutchinson&#8217;s signature on April 4, the law went into effect July 28.</p> <p><strong>THE PROCESS IN PRACTICE</strong></p> <p>The enactment of HB1637 creates a process to potentially push back against overreaching executive authority. Upon an order by the governor based on a determination of unconstitutionality, the state will be required to <strong>withdraw all resources and cease any cooperation with enforcement or implementation of the action</strong>. But in practice, the bill will likely have very little if any effect.</p> <p>In the first place, it does not <strong>require</strong> any review. The language says “<strong>may</strong> review.” That leaves it to the discretion of the Joint Budget Committee or Legislative Council to take action on a specific EO. The bill doesn’t require them to do anything. It’s nothing but a suggestion.</p> <p>There is also no requirement for the governor to end state enforcement of an executive order even if it is ultimately determined to be unconstitutional. That action would be solely at his discretion.</p> <p>In the second place, this cumbersome review process isn’t even necessary. The legislature already has the authority to review executive orders and prohibit their implementation for any reason whatsoever. In fact, the legislature could simply pass a bill prohibiting state enforcement of specific types of executive orders without any lengthy and unwieldy constitutional review. The state has the right to direct its personnel and resources as it sees fit. It can prohibit the enforcement of federal laws or the implementation of federal programs for any reason at all. Arkansas could withdraw state resources from the enforcement of federal acts just because it’s Tuesday and there’s snow on the ground.</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The provisions prohibiting the state from enforcing or implementing certain federal acts rests on a well-established legal principle known as <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the anti-commandeering doctrine</a>. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program – whether constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>Based on James Madison’s <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/07/the-blueprint-james-madisons-advice/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides an extremely effective method to render federal laws, effectively unenforceable because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed this type of approach would be extremely effective. In a televised discussion on federal gun laws, he noted that a single state refusing to cooperate with enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-arkansas-law-creats-process-to-review-and-reject-presidential-executive-orders/">Now in Effect: Arkansas Law Creats Process to Review and Reject Presidential Executive Orders</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Federal Review State Bills anti-commandeerig Arkansas Constitution Executive Orders HB1637 Amanda Bowers Now in Effect: Convoluted Arkansas Law That Might End State Enforcement of Some Future Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-convoluted-arkansas-law-that-might-end-state-enforcement-of-some-future-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4f6acade-cd6b-e190-efab-7f0a4399c299 Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:06:13 +0000 <p>much of the language in the new law is extremely convoluted and could leave a loophole for law enforcement officers to continue enforcing federal gun control.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-convoluted-arkansas-law-that-might-end-state-enforcement-of-some-future-federal-gun-control/">Now in Effect: Convoluted Arkansas Law That Might End State Enforcement of Some Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>LITTLE ROCK</strong>, Ark. (July. 28, 2021) – Today, an Arkansas law that <strong>could maybe possibly</strong> prohibit enforcement of some future federal gun control went into effect. But some convoluted language in the bill makes it uncertain if it will actually play out that way in practice.<span id="more-37788"></span></p> <p>In April, the Senate voted to override a Gov. Asa Hutchinson <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/26/arkansas-governor-vetoes-bill-to-end-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control-override-effort-underway/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">veto of a bill</a> that would have banned the state from participating in the enforcement of a wide range of federal gun control acts dating back to 1934. But the House passed a motion by a voice vote to postpone the override, in effect allowing the veto to stand. The House then considered several alternative bills.</p> <p>Ultimately, the House settled on House Bill 1957 (<a href="https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=HB1957&amp;chamber=House&amp;ddBienniumSession=2021%2F2021R" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1957</a>) sponsored by Rep. Jeff Wardlaw and Sen. Missy Irvin (R). The intent of the law is to ban state enforcement of some future federal gun control. HB1957 prohibits public officers and employees of the state and its political subdivisions from “enforcing or assisting federal agencies or officers in the enforcement of any federal statute, executive order, or federal agency directive that conflicts with Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5, or any Arkansas law.”</p> <p>The law also declares a “federal ban” null and void in the state of Arkansas. A federal ban is broadly defined as “a federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that is enacted, adopted, or becomes effective on or after January 1, 2021, that infringes upon, calls into question, or prohibits, restricts, or requires individual licensure for or registration of the purchase, ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm, any magazine or other ammunition feeding device, or other firearm accessory.”</p> <p>The law also includes a list of federal actions that would qualify as “a federal ban.”</p> <ul> <li>taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;</li> <li>any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.</li> </ul> <p>However, much of the language in the new law is extremely convoluted and could leave a loophole for law enforcement officers to continue enforcing federal gun control. It specifically bars state and local agents from enforcing acts that “conflict with Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5, or any Arkansas law.”</p> <p>Law enforcement lobby groups are likely to promote the view that “it’s not the job of a law enforcement officer to determine what’s constitutional or not.” And in practice, that means law enforcement agents can plausibly continue helping in the enforcement of all federal gun control in Arkansas until a court tells them to do otherwise.</p> <p>It appears that the law intends to link the definition of a “federal ban” with acts state and local agents would be prohibited from enforcing. But the term “federal ban” does not appear in the clause prohibiting enforcement. The most generous reading of the law would prohibit state and local officials from enforcing any federal action included in the definition of a federal ban. But the tangled language makes it difficult to determine how the law will be interpreted in practice. If history tells us anything, cops will interpret as loosely as they can in order to continue working with their &#8220;federal partners&#8221; to enforce any and all federal gun control.</p> <p>A leading grassroots activist in Arkansas called the bill “smoke and mirrors.”</p> <p>The House passed HB197 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/HB1957/id/1063465" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a 75-19 vote</a>. The Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/AR/rollcall/HB1957/id/1064364" target="_blank" rel="noopener">approved the measure 26-6</a>. Gov. Hutchinson signed the bill into law and it went into effed on July 28.</p> <p>The fact Hutchinson signed the bill is another indication that it might not have any real teeth, given that he caved to intense law enforcement opposition and vetoed the much stronger Senate Bill 298. In his <a href="https://wehco.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/news/documents/2021/04/23/SB298_Letter.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">veto letter</a>, Hutchinson called the partnership between state and federal law enforcement “crucial.” You can get more details on the legislation Hutchinson vetoed <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/to-the-governor-arkansas-passes-bill-to-end-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HERE</a>.</p> <p><strong>POTENTIALLY EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p><strong>If the bill results in non-enforcement of some federal action</strong>, it would be an effective way to stop some future federal gun control in Arkansas. The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The state of Arkansas can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-convoluted-arkansas-law-that-might-end-state-enforcement-of-some-future-federal-gun-control/">Now in Effect: Convoluted Arkansas Law That Might End State Enforcement of Some Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Arkansas Federal Gun Control HB1957 SB298 Mike Maharrey Void! https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/void/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:5ffb7987-eb6d-99b7-c824-ec2f09169d2a Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:07:06 +0000 <p>Many people in the founding generation said that any federal act no authorized by the Constitution is "void." That means we should treat it just like the company treats a voided warranty - as if it didn't exist.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/void/">Void!</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>What happens when you do something that voids your warranty? The company no longer honors it. The warranty is no longer in effect. It is unenforcible.</p> <p>Many people in the founding generation said that any federal act no authorized by the Constitution is &#8220;void.&#8221; That means we should treat it just like the company treats a voided warranty &#8211; as if it didn&#8217;t exist.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Acts against the constitution are VOID. It&#39;s time to treat them that way too. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/nullify?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#nullify</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://t.co/WeMx2jl1ef">pic.twitter.com/WeMx2jl1ef</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1419690939874877444?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 26, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification-overview/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nullification</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/02/nullification-wasnt-invented-by-thomas-jefferson/">Nullification Wasn’t Invented by Thomas Jefferson</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/kentucky-resolutions-of-1798/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kentucky Resolutions of 1798</a></p> <p><a class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-supremacy-clause/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Supremacy Clause</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/void/">Void!</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute Constitution Nullification Void Mike Maharrey Pres. Biden Wants to Boost Funding for National Police State https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/26/pres-biden-wants-to-boost-funding-for-national-police-state/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:602a1d4c-e92c-eec2-3999-cb8a2d2aa4dc Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:12:17 +0000 <p>the first proposed Biden budget more than doubles funding for a federal program that doles out money to state and local police departments to hire law enforcement officers.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/26/pres-biden-wants-to-boost-funding-for-national-police-state/">Pres. Biden Wants to Boost Funding for National Police State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>Remember when Democrats were going to defund the police?</p> <p>Not so much.</p> <p>In fact, the first proposed Biden budget more than doubles funding for a federal program that doles out money to state and local police departments to hire law enforcement officers.<span id="more-36484"></span></p> <p>The <a href="https://cops.usdoj.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Office of Community Oriented Policing Services</a> (COPS Office) is a federal welfare program that helps fund state and local police agencies with money for officer hiring and retention. According to the agency website, “The COPS Office awards grants to hire community policing professionals, develop and test innovative policing strategies, and provide training and technical assistance to community members, local government leaders, and all levels of law enforcement.&#8221; Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested more than $14 billion to help advance community policing.</p> <p>The Trump administration boosted funding for the COPS hiring program by 9.5 percent from $137 million to $150 million during his first term. Trump increased funding moderately each of the next three years with the program receiving $157 million in his final year.</p> <p>If Trump was known as the &#8220;thin blue line&#8221; president, Biden is going for thick blue entire sheet of paper. He  wants to boost COPS spending by 147.1 percent to $388 million.</p> <p>COPS money comes will <a href="https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2020AwardDocs/chp/FY20_Relentless_Pursuit_Fact_Sheet.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">all kinds of strings attached</a>. For instance, in 2020, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-61-million-awards-support-efforts-combat-violent-crime-seven-us?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=govdelivery" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the DOJ announced $51 million in federal grant money</a> through the COPS program to hire 214 sworn law enforcement officers for state and local law enforcement task forces in the cities under the program. The program effectively incentivized local police in these cities to align their efforts with federal policing priorities. Officers assigned to the ORP were tasked to work in coordination with the U.S. Attorneys Office and “other relevant federal agencies” to investigate targets involved in “gang, drug trafficking and other violent crime-related issues.”</p> <blockquote><p>“The COPS Office expects that officers deployed to ORP task force operations as a result of CHP funding will spend all or most of their time performing task force–related activities.”</p></blockquote> <p>Under the guidelines for the ORP money, “The recipients of the funding will deploy existing veteran officers to task force duties and use the CHP funding to hire new recruits to backfill those positions, as practical.”</p> <p>Despite branding this as a program to battle violent crime, it is really nothing but an extension of the unconstitutional war on drugs. In effect, the ORP money is being used to incentivize police departments in these cities to put their veteran officers on the front lines of the war on drugs and leave everyday policing in the community to rookies. Federal priorities will come first whether or not they are really those that would most benefit local residents or not.</p> <p>Through incentives created by federal funding and the proliferation of joint task forces that combine state, local and federal policing, the federal government has effectively created a national police force.</p> <p>The federal government was never intended to exercise “police powers” in the first place. The Constitution only defines four federal crimes – treason, piracies and felonies committed on the high Seas, counterfeiting, and crimes against the law of nations. The federal government also has criminal jurisdiction within Washington D.C. and its other enclaves.</p> <p>The creation of every other federal crime violates the Constitution.</p> <p>In other words, virtually the entire federal law enforcement apparatus is unconstitutional.</p> <p>Nevertheless, the federal government is developing a national police force that operates outside of any jurisdictional, legal or constitutional boundaries. Joint task forces are a threat to liberty. States should simply withdraw.</p> <p>Despite all of the &#8220;defund the police&#8221; talk coming from Democrats, Biden clearly wants to expand this national police state. After all, if you really want to understand priorities, follow the money.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/26/pres-biden-wants-to-boost-funding-for-national-police-state/">Pres. Biden Wants to Boost Funding for National Police State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Federal Funding Police federal-funding Joe Biden Police State Mike Maharrey Oakland Ordinance Sets the Stage to Limit Local Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/oakland-ordinance-sets-the-stage-to-limit-local-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:70cd2019-6fa2-6a4f-0a3d-29c985f763d6 Mon, 26 Jul 2021 19:11:40 +0000 <p>Under the law, police in the city won't be able to obtain or use military equipment without city council approval. Law enforcement must submit a detailed Controlled Equipment Impact Report and a Controlled Equipment Use Policy to the Oakland Police Commission before obtaining or using "controlled" equipment. The police commission will make recommendations to the council before that body votes to approve or prohibit the equipment.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/oakland-ordinance-sets-the-stage-to-limit-local-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/">Oakland Ordinance Sets the Stage to Limit Local Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>OAKLAND</strong>, Calif. (July 26, 2021) &#8211; Earlier this month. the Oakland City Council gave final approval to an ordinance that takes the first step toward limiting the impact of federal programs that militarize local police.<span id="more-37796"></span></p> <p>Vice Mayor Rebecca Kaplan introduced the military equipment along with council members Noel Gallo and Dan Kalb. Under the law, police in the city won&#8217;t be able to obtain or use military equipment without city council approval. Law enforcement must submit a detailed Controlled Equipment Impact Report and a Controlled Equipment Use Policy to the Oakland Police Commission before obtaining or using &#8220;controlled&#8221; equipment. The police commission will make recommendations to the council before that body votes to approve or prohibit the equipment.</p> <p>The definition of &#8220;controlled equipment&#8221; includes a long list of specific military gear including MRAPs, tracked vehicles, weapon-bearing aircraft, firearms of .50 caliber or greater, specialized firearms as defined by California law, weapons designed for hand-to-hand combat (excluding batons), explosives (including flash-bangs), and any other &#8220;military equipment.&#8221;</p> <p>The Oakland City Council unanimously approved the ordinance in June and it went into effect after a second vote on July 6.</p> <p>The ordinance applies both to the well-known 1033 program, along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government.</p> <p>While passage of this ordinance won’t end the militarization of Oakland law enforcement, it will make it more difficult for police in the county to obtain such weapons and equipment, establishes a high level of transparency, and sets the stage for further limits in the future.</p> <p>Police departments often obtain military and surveillance equipment from the federal government in complete secrecy. Requiring public disclosure of all requests for military gear and requiring council approval will bring the process into the open and provide an opportunity for concerned residents to stop the acquisition through their local representatives.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL SURPLUS AND GRANT MONEY</strong></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/war-on-liberty-an-overview-of-federal-programs-that-militarize-and-nationalize-local-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Police can get military-grade weapons through a number of federal programs</a>, including the 1033 program, and via the Department of Homeland Security through the (DHS) “Homeland Security Grant Program.” The DHS <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/04/12/dhs-announces-funding-opportunity-fiscal-year-2019-preparedness-grants#:~:text=Homeland%20Security%20Grant%20Program%20(HSGP,of%20terrorism%20and%20other%20threats." data-et-has-event-already="true">doles out over $1 billion in counterterrorism funds</a> to state and local police each year. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”</p> <p>In August 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/28/executive-order-takes-window-dressing-off-police-militarization-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gave a push to local police militarization</a>. Trump’s action rescinded an <a href="https://www.bja.gov/publications/LEEWG_Report_Final.pdf">Obama-era policy </a>meant to provide greater transparency and oversight around the Department of Defense 1033 program and other federal resources that provide military weapons to local police. Biden reinstituted the Obama policy, but it was nothing more than window-dressing. In practice, the Obama EO did little to stem the flow of military equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies.</p> <p>Even with the Obama-era limits back in place, the 1033 program will remain essentially intact. Military gear will continue to pour into local police agencies, just as it did when Obama was in the White House.</p> <p>Even if you see the Obama/Biden limits as a positive, the multiple federal flip-flops underscore the importance of putting limits on police militarization at the state and local level. Federal policy tends to change depending on the party in power. Whatever limits Biden imposes through executive order can be undone with a stroke of the next president’s pen. The only way to effectively end police militarization for good is permanently withdrawing the state from these federal programs.</p> <p>The new ordinance will limit participation in federal police militarization programs and create a framework of transparency. It will also create a foundation for the public to stop their local police from obtaining this type of gear.</p> <p><strong>COMMAND AND CONTROL</strong></p> <p>Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the founders. They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’</p> <p>In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”</p> <p>By making it more difficult for local police to get this military-grade gear and surveillance technology, and ensuring they can’t do it in secret, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships. The passage of this ordinance takes the first step toward limiting police militarization in Oakland.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/oakland-ordinance-sets-the-stage-to-limit-local-participation-in-federal-police-militarization-programs/">Oakland Ordinance Sets the Stage to Limit Local Participation in Federal Police Militarization Programs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Police 1033 Program California Federal Militarization of Police Oakland Police-State Mike Maharrey Infinite‌ ‌and‌ ‌Incomprehensible:‌ ‌Antifederalist‌ ‌Brutus‌ ‌No.‌ ‌5‌ https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/infinite%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cand%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cincomprehensible%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cantifederalist%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cbrutus%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cno-%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8c5%e2%80%8c/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:c201b28b-bffa-f0dd-f17d-dc26bdc2ee22 Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:36:35 +0000 <p>Rather than a general government with few and defined powers, in his 5th essay, Antifederalist Brutus warned that a combination of taxing power and the necessary and proper clause would lead to a government with nearly infinite and incomprehensible power.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/infinite%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cand%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cincomprehensible%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cantifederalist%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cbrutus%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cno-%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8c5%e2%80%8c/">Infinite‌ ‌and‌ ‌Incomprehensible:‌ ‌Antifederalist‌ ‌Brutus‌ ‌No.‌ ‌5‌</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Rather than a general government with few and defined powers, in his 5th essay, Antifederalist Brutus warned that a combination of taxing power and the necessary and proper clause would lead to a government with nearly infinite and incomprehensible power.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: July 26, 2021<span id="more-37798"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/62NDAJJuikY?start=68" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/brutus-iv/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Brutus No. 4 (29 Nov 1787)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/Samuel-Adams-Letter-24Oct1780.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Samuel Adams to James Warren (24 Oct 1780)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1906#Elliot_1314-02_124" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Old Abraham White &#8211; Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (16 Jan 1788)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/nullify-the-police-state-no-knock-warrant-edition/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Episode: No-Knock Warrants</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/lee-empire-and-nation-letters-from-a-farmer" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Dickinson &#8211; Letter VI from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1767) </a></p> <p><a href="https://libertas.org/justice-and-due-process/should-home-invasions-for-drugs-continue/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Libertas &#8211; Utah &#8211; drug war</a></p> <p><a href="https://kypolicy.org/banning-no-knock-warrants-first-step-in-addressing-police-violence-demilitarization/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Data &#8211; KY center for economic policy</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Letters_of_Richard_Henry_Lee/2DpLAAAAYAAJ" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Richard Henry Lee to his nephew Thomas Shippen (21 Sept 1791)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/police-are-lying-about-no-knock-warrants/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Amanda Bowers &#8211; Police Are Lying About “No-Knock” Warrants </a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/kyfoplodge4/posts/2911034909163225" rel="noopener" target="_blank">FOP Post</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/kyfoplodge4/posts/2924406684492714" rel="noopener" target="_blank">FOP Again</a></p> <p><a href="https://archive.is/UCXJo" rel="noopener" target="_blank">KY 2020</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-raids-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Texas</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1907#Elliot_1314-03_149" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Patrick Henry (5 June 1788)</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072321:8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/theyre-lying-no-knock-warrant-edition-60faf22f6d4b9cc230b20e2a" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072321:8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1265346079615254528" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/678798e4-f22f-4643-ab23-a264c1b38ec0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/6WI0QdVYyR/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/7hP56xFtIx1c/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/463472ab-74ce-4bdb-b317-a1110022a55f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CRrUybmrl7x/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/0036b8b0-8f21-44ea-b633-41f50291a0fa" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1418609446255665154" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter/show/60faf47d9af9cd568ad75d23" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on MeWe</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6824385667674587136/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/infinite%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cand%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cincomprehensible%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cantifederalist%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cbrutus%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8cno-%e2%80%8c-%e2%80%8c5%e2%80%8c/">Infinite‌ ‌and‌ ‌Incomprehensible:‌ ‌Antifederalist‌ ‌Brutus‌ ‌No.‌ ‌5‌</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Brutus Necessary and Proper Clause Path to Liberty Antifederalist Brutus No 5 Taxing Power Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 27:16 Rather than a general government with few and defined powers, in his 5th essay, Antifederalist Brutus warned that a combination of taxing power and the necessary and proper clause would lead to a government with nearly infinite and incomprehensible power. Rather than a general government with few and defined powers, in his 5th essay, Antifederalist Brutus warned that a combination of taxing power and the necessary and proper clause would lead to a government with nearly infinite and incomprehensible power. We Don’t Really Need a “Debt Ceiling” https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/we-dont-really-need-a-debt-ceiling/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:fa8d3db7-4ef8-f16e-f922-6a1ff38e5812 Sun, 25 Jul 2021 21:20:35 +0000 <p>Brace yourself. We're in for another "debt ceiling" battle on Capitol Hill. But we don't even really need a borrowing ceiling. There's one built into the Constitution. It's the enumerated powers. They would naturally limit borrowing and spending.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/we-dont-really-need-a-debt-ceiling/">We Don’t Really Need a “Debt Ceiling”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Brace yourself. We&#8217;re in for another &#8220;debt ceiling&#8221; battle on Capitol Hill. But we don&#8217;t even really need a borrowing ceiling. There&#8217;s one built into the Constitution. It&#8217;s the enumerated powers. They would naturally limit borrowing and spending.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">If they followed the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Constitution</a>, this fake <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/debtceiling?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#debtceiling</a> debate would never even happen. But yet, here we are. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/politicians?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#politicians</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://t.co/IXRGXYRGdN">pic.twitter.com/IXRGXYRGdN</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1418665052912029703?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 23, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">30 Enumerated Powers</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/08/its-gotta-be-on-the-list/">It’s Gotta Be on the List!</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/10th-amendment-the-enumerated-powers-of-states/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">10th Amendment: The Enumerated Powers of States</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/we-dont-really-need-a-debt-ceiling/">We Don’t Really Need a “Debt Ceiling”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Current Events Federal Funding Maharrey Minute Debt Ceiling Enumerated Powers government spending Mike Maharrey Now in Effect: Washington Law Prohibits No-Knock Warrants and Limits Federal Militarization of Police https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-washington-law-prohibits-no-knock-warrants-and-limits-federal-militarization-of-police/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:85046a5e-a26f-e7dc-fd60-3dce147f2084 Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:27:18 +0000 <p>The new law makes numerous policing reforms and includes provisions to prohibit no-knock warrants and limit the type of military equipment police can obtain through federal programs.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-washington-law-prohibits-no-knock-warrants-and-limits-federal-militarization-of-police/">Now in Effect: Washington Law Prohibits No-Knock Warrants and Limits Federal Militarization of Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>OLYMPIA</strong>, Wash. (July 25, 2021) –  Today, a law goes into effect in Washington state that prohibits no-knock warrants and puts limits on state and local law enforcement agencies’ ability to acquire certain military equipment from federal programs.<span id="more-37730"></span><span id="more-37357"></span></p> <p>Rep. Jesse Johnson (D-Federal Way) filed House Bill 1054 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/bill/HB1054/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1054</a>) in January. The new law makes numerous policing reforms and includes provisions to prohibit no-knock warrants and limit the type of military equipment police can obtain through federal programs.</p> <p>The House <a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/rollcall/HB1054/id/1061969" target="_blank" rel="noopener">approved the final version of HB1054 by a 55-42 vote</a>. The Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/WA/rollcall/HB1054/id/1061693" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed the bill 28-20.</a> With Gov. Jay Inslee&#8217;s signature, the law went into effect on July 25.</p> <p><strong>POLICE MILITARIZATION</strong></p> <p>The new law prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from acquiring or using “military equipment.” The law defines the following as “military equipment.”</p> <ul> <li>firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater</li> <li>machine guns</li> <li>armed helicopters</li> <li>armed or armored drones</li> <li>armed vessels</li> <li>armed vehicles</li> <li>armed aircraft</li> <li>tanks</li> <li>long-range acoustic hailing devices</li> <li>rockets</li> <li>rocket launchers</li> <li>bayonets</li> <li>grenades</li> <li>missiles</li> <li>directed energy systems</li> <li>electromagnetic spectrum weapons</li> </ul> <p>A ban on mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) in the original House version was amended out of the bill in the Senate.</p> <p>The legislation applies both to the well-known 1033 program, along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government, as well as federal programs that fund the acquisition of surplus military equipment.</p> <p>Any law enforcement agency in possession of military equipment as of the effective date of the law must return the equipment to the federal agency from which it was acquired, or destroy the equipment by December 31, 2022.</p> <p>While the enactment of HB1054 will not end the militarization of local cops, it will keep some dangerous weapons out of the hands of police officers.</p> <p><strong>Federal Surplus and Grant Money</strong></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/war-on-liberty-an-overview-of-federal-programs-that-militarize-and-nationalize-local-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Police can get military-grade weapons through a number of federal programs</a>, including the 1033 program, and via the Department of Homeland Security through the (DHS) “Homeland Security Grant Program.” The DHS <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/04/12/dhs-announces-funding-opportunity-fiscal-year-2019-preparedness-grants#:~:text=Homeland%20Security%20Grant%20Program%20(HSGP,of%20terrorism%20and%20other%20threats." data-et-has-event-already="true">doles out over $1 billion in counterterrorism funds</a> to state and local police each year. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon-funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”</p> <p>In August 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/28/executive-order-takes-window-dressing-off-police-militarization-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gave a push to local police militarization</a>. Trump’s action rescinded an <a href="https://www.bja.gov/publications/LEEWG_Report_Final.pdf">Obama-era policy </a>meant to provide greater transparency and oversight around the Department of Defense 1033 program and other federal resources that provide military weapons to local police. Biden will reportedly reinstitute the Obama policy, but it was nothing more than window-dressing. In practice, the Obama EO did little to stem the flow of military equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies.</p> <p>Even with the Obama-era limits back in place, the 1033 program will remain essentially intact. Military gear will continue to pour into local police agencies, just as it did when Obama was in the White House.</p> <p>Even if you see the Obama/Biden limits as a positive, the multiple federal flip-flops underscore the importance of putting limits on police militarization at the state and local level. Federal policy tends to change depending on the party in power. Whatever limits Biden imposes through executive order can be undone with a stroke of the next president’s pen. The only way to effectively end police militarization for good is permanently withdrawing the state from these federal programs.</p> <p>The enactment of HB1054 limits Washington’s participation in federal police militarization programs.</p> <p><b>Command and Control</b></p> <p>Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the founders. They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’</p> <p>In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”</p> <p>By making it more difficult for local police to get this military-grade gear, they become less likely to cooperate with the feds, and it also removes incentives for partnerships. The enactment of HB1054 takes a first step toward limiting police militarization in Washington State.</p> <p><strong>NO-KNOCK WARRANTS</strong></p> <p>Another provision in HB1054 effectively bans “no-knock” warrants. Under the law, police are prohibited from seeking and courts cannot issue a search or arrest warrant granting an express exception to the requirement for the officer to provide notice of his or her office and purpose when executing the warrant. Police can only enter a building “if, after notice of his or her office and purpose, he or she be refused admittance.”</p> <p>The enactment of HB1054 effectively nullifies and makes irrelevant several Supreme Court opinions that give police across the U.S. legal cover for conducting no-knock raids.</p> <p>In the 1995 case <em><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15506865603077276139&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wilson v. Arkansas</a></em>, the Supreme Court established that police must peacefully knock, announce their presence, and allow time for the occupants to open the door before entering a home to serve a warrant. But the Court allowed for “exigent circumstance” exceptions if police fear violence, if the suspect is a flight risk, or if officers fear the suspect will destroy evidence.</p> <p>As journalist <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/03/no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-was-illegal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Radley Balko notes</a>, police utilized this exception to the fullest extent, “simply declaring in search warrant affidavits that <i>all</i> drug dealers are a threat to dispose of evidence, flee or assault the officers at the door.”</p> <p>The SCOTUS eliminated this blanket exception in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10920539616941250099&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i>Richards v. Wisconsin</i></a>  (1997) requiring police to show why a specific individual is a threat to dispose of evidence, commit an act of violence or flee from police. But even with the opinion, the bar for obtaining a no-knock warrant remains low.</p> <blockquote><p>“In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a <strong>reasonable suspicion</strong> that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” [Emphasis added]</p></blockquote> <p>Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low legal bar to meet. Through this exception, police can justify no-knock entry on any warrant application. In effect, the parameters in the SCOTUS ruling make no-knock the norm instead of the exception.</p> <p>A third Supreme Court ruling effectively eliminated the consequences for violating the “knock and announce” requirement even without a no-knock warrant. In <em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1360.pdf">Hudson v. Michigan</a></em> (2006), the High Court held that evidence seized in violation of knock and announce was not subject to the exclusionary rule. In other words, police could still use the evidence in court even though they technically gathered it illegally.</p> <p>Significantly, were it not for the dubious “<a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>” made up by the Supreme Court based on the 14th Amendment that purportedly empowers the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, these cases would have never gone to federal court and we wouldn’t have these blanket rules.</p> <p>Without specific restrictions from the state, police officers generally operate within the parameters set by the High Court. By passing restrictions on no-knock warrants, states set standards that go beyond the Supreme Court limits and in effect, nullify the SCOTUS opinion,</p> <p><strong>OTHER REFORMS</strong></p> <p>HB1054  bans law enforcement officers from using “chokeholds.” It also prohibits the use of tear gas “unless necessary to alleviate a present risk of serious harm posed by (a) Riot inside a correctional, jail, or detention facility; (b) barricaded subject; or (c) hostage situation.” Other provisions in the legislation institute rules for police vehicular chases.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-washington-law-prohibits-no-knock-warrants-and-limits-federal-militarization-of-police/">Now in Effect: Washington Law Prohibits No-Knock Warrants and Limits Federal Militarization of Police</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Police State Bills 1033 Program HB1054 No Knock Warrants Police Militarization Washington Amanda Bowers How establishment conservatives betray the Second Amendment https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/how-establishment-conservatives-betray-the-second-amendment/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:95a0f4b7-0e9d-3c14-9eac-0c5c69a82866 Sat, 24 Jul 2021 14:09:50 +0000 <p>NICS viewed as a “common sense” form of gun control that supposedly stops crime and keeps us “safe.”</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/how-establishment-conservatives-betray-the-second-amendment/">How establishment conservatives betray the Second Amendment</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Having been involved in politics for over a decade, I’ve developed a number of pet peeves.</p> <p>Honestly, I could write a 10,000 word email listing off every single one of those annoyances and why they make me livid.<span id="more-37792"></span></p> <p>But then I know you’d fall asleep or unsubscribe from this list. Hehe.</p> <p>Brevity has become a fixture of my approach to things in recent times and I intend on keeping it that way.</p> <p>Anyways, let’s dig into one thing that gets me REALLY worked up when it comes to how some folks on the supposed “Right” approach politics.</p> <p>You see, there’s a lot of these cats who claim to be pro-Second Amendment and position themselves as friends to gun owners.</p> <p>To that I ask, “ok….but are you willing to repeal federal gun control laws?“</p> <p>That’s when things start to get uncomfortable….</p> <p>Most of the time I’ll receive very incoherent answers.</p> <p>Sometimes I’ll get the dreaded “I support the Second Amendment but….” and later proceed to justify some form of gun control that’s on the books.</p> <p>To quote the great Michael Malice “Anything preceding &#8216;but&#8217; in a political statement can be ignored.”</p> <p>Keep this in mind when dealing with politicos along your journey.</p> <p>Back to gun control that certain figures on the Right support&#8230;</p> <p>The most common form of gun control that your normie conservative is in favor of is the National Instant Background Check System (NICS).</p> <p>It’s viewed as a “common sense” form of gun control that supposedly stops crime and keeps us “safe.”</p> <p>Here are some inconvenient facts for the conservative counter-signalers:</p> <p>Crime was already falling before the NICS system came into effect in 1998.</p> <p>This has been a secular trend that started in the late 1970s-early 1980s. Peep John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crimes for more deets.</p> <p>Also Last time I checked there’s nowhere in the constitution that allows for the creation of the NICS system.<br /> ​<br /> And last but certainly not least, NICS is a bureaucratic monstrosity that is notorious for mixing and matching lawful citizen’s information with that of criminals, thus depriving many otherwise lawful Americans of their right to bear arms.</p> <p>This entire system needs to be flushed down the toilet.</p> <p>I make the case for conservatives to take stronger stances against NICS in a recent post for Liberty Conservative News.</p> <p>​<a href="https://click.convertkit-mail.com/5qu6l7480ku7hdw08pu6/z2hghnhooplp0xap/aHR0cHM6Ly9saWJlcnR5Y29uc2VydmF0aXZlbmV3cy5jb20vc2hvdWxkLWd1bi1vd25lcnMtcmVjb25zaWRlci1kZWZlbmRpbmctdGhlLWZlZGVyYWwtYmFja2dyb3VuZC1jaGVjay1zeXN0ZW0v" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://libertyconservativenews.com/should-gun-owners-reconsider-defending-the-federal-background-check-system/</a>​</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/how-establishment-conservatives-betray-the-second-amendment/">How establishment conservatives betray the Second Amendment</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Republocrats Right to Keep and Bear Arms 2nd Amendment NICS Republicans José Alberto Niño Neither Necessary nor Proper https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/24/neither-necessary-nor-proper/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:a5f28820-6334-7a2b-e7cc-55fa866adbe7 Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:18:39 +0000 <p>The federal government’s war on marijuana (and all other drugs) is neither necessary in a free society nor proper under the Constitution.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/24/neither-necessary-nor-proper/">Neither Necessary nor Proper</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>It was sixteen years ago last month that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><i>Gonzales v. Raich</i></a> (2005), ruled that the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) did not exceed the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use.<span id="more-36489"></span></p> <p>In this case, Angel Raich and another defendant used marijuana for medical purposes in accordance with California’s 1996 Compassionate Use Act. The federal government objected, based on the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance with “a high potential for abuse,” “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” and “a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision.” As a consequence, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized and destroyed a number of cannabis plants.</p> <p>The defendants sued the federal government in 2002, claiming that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. A federal district court ruled against the defendants. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ruled that the CSA was unconstitutional as it applied to <i>intrastate</i> medical marijuana. The government appealed the decision, and the case was argued before the Supreme Court in November of 2004. The 6-3 opinion, which was delivered by Justice Stevens, with Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Thomas dissenting, effectively says that the federal government has the authority to prohibit marijuana possession and use for any and all purposes.</p> <p>In his brilliant dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas made several key points about the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and federalism:</p> <blockquote><p>Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.</p> <p>Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.</p> <p>Even assuming the CSA’s ban on locally cultivated and consumed marijuana is “necessary,” that does not mean it is also “proper.” The means selected by Congress to regulate interstate commerce cannot be “prohibited” by, or inconsistent with the “letter and spirit” of, the Constitution.</p> <p>One searches the Court’s opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the States.</p> <p>Our federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a growing number of other States to decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens. I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I respectfully dissent.</p></blockquote> <p>So, how does the <i>Gonzales v. Raich</i> case from 2005 relate to today?</p> <p>At the end of last month, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in the case of <i>Standing Akimbo v. United States</i>, No. 19-1049 (10th Cir. 2020). This means that the decision of the Tenth Circuit will stand.</p> <p>Here is the official summary of the case from <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/19-1049/19-1049-2020-04-07.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Justia</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>The IRS conducted a civil audit of Peter Hermes, Kevin Desilet, Samantha Murphy, and John Murphy (collectively, the “Taxpayers”) to verify their tax liabilities for their medical- marijuana dispensary, Standing Akimbo, LLC. The IRS was investigating whether the Taxpayers had taken improper deductions for business expenses arising from a “trade or business” that “consists of trafficking in controlled substances.” Claiming to fear criminal prosecution, the Taxpayers declined to provide the audit information to the IRS. This left the IRS to seek the information elsewhere—it issued four summonses for plant reports, gross-sales reports and license information to the Colorado Department of Revenue’s Marijuana Enforcement Division (the “Enforcement Division”), which is the state entity responsible for regulating licensed marijuana sales. In Colorado federal district court, the Taxpayers filed a petition to quash the summonses. The government moved to dismiss the petition and to enforce the summonses. The district court granted the motion to dismiss and ordered the summonses enforced. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the Taxpayers failed to overcome the IRS’ showing of good faith, and failed to establish that enforcing the summonses would constitute an abuse of process.</p></blockquote> <p>So once again we have a case regarding marijuana before the Supreme Court. And once again, it is Justice Clarence Thomas who questions the federal government’s prohibition of marijuana. In his <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-645_9p6b.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> for the Ccourt denying the petition for a writ of certiorari, he further explains the tax issue at the heart of the case:</p> <blockquote><p>At issue here is a provision of the Tax Code that allows most businesses to calculate their taxable income by subtracting from their gross revenue the cost of goods sold and other ordinary and necessary business expenses, such as rent and employee salaries. … But because of a public-policy provision in the Tax Code, companies that deal in controlled substances prohibited by federal law may subtract only the cost of goods sold, not the other ordinary and necessary business expenses. . . .… Under this rule, a business that is still in the red after it pays its workers and keeps the lights on might nonetheless owe substantial federal income tax.</p></blockquote> <p>Five times in the statement, Justice Thomas references the <i>Raich</i> case:</p> <blockquote><p>Sixteen years ago, this Court held that Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce authorized  it “to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana” (citing <i>Raich</i>).</p> <p>Whatever the merits of <i>Raich</i> when it was decided, federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning.</p> <p>Though federal law still flatly forbids the intra-state possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana, . . .… the Government, post-<i>Raich</i>, has sent mixed signals on its views.</p> <p>The Federal Government’s current approach to marijuana bears little resemblance to the watertight nationwide prohibition that a closely divided Court found necessary to justify the Government’s blanket prohibition in <i>Raich</i>.</p> <p>If the Government is now content to allow States to act “as laboratories” “‘and try novel social and economic experiments’” then it might no longer have authority to intrude on “[t]he States’ core police powers . . . to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens” (citing <i>Raich</i>).</p></blockquote> <p>Justice Thomas also pointed out the federal government’s contradictory approach to the legality of marijuana:</p> <blockquote><p>Once comprehensive, the Federal Government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana. This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary.</p> <p>In 2009 and 2013, the Department of Justice issued memorandums outlining a policy against intruding on state legalization schemes or prosecuting certain individuals who comply with state law. In 2009, Congress enabled Washington D. C.’s government to decriminalize medical marijuana under local ordinance. Moreover, in every fiscal year since 2015, Congress has prohibited the Department of Justice from “spending funds to prevent states’ implementation of their own medical marijuana laws.”</p> <p>Given all these developments, one can certainly under-stand why an ordinary person might think that the Federal Government has retreated from its once-absolute ban on marijuana. . . . … One can also perhaps understand why business owners in Colorado, like petitioners, may think that their intrastate marijuana operations will be treated like any other enterprise that is legal under state law.</p> <p>A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the Federal Government’s piecemeal approach.</p></blockquote> <p>Justice Thomas’ use of the words “necessary” and “proper” is a deliberate reference to the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution (art. I, sec. 8, para. 18), which states that the Congress shall have the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The question at issue in the <i>Raich</i> decision was whether this clause included “the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.”</p> <p>So then, since 36 states have legalized the medical use of marijuana (with regulations), 27 states have decriminalized the possession of marijuana (in small amounts), 18 states have legalized the recreational marijuana legal in 18 states (with restrictions), and the District of Columbia has done all three things, what are the chances that the federal government will finally leave marijuana legislation up to the states? And eEspecially since marijuana is only fully illegal in only five states (Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wyoming), and “a recent Quinnipiac University <a href="https://reason.com/2021/05/28/do-democrats-realize-they-need-republican-support-to-legalize-marijuana/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">poll</a> found that 69 percent of Americans, including 78 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of Republicans, support marijuana legalization.”</p> <p>House Democrats have once again introduced the MORE ACT, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2021 (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3617/text" target="_blank" rel="noopener">H.R.3617</a>) “to decriminalize and deschedule cannabis, to provide for reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, to provide for expungement of certain cannabis offenses, and for other purposes.” Senate Majority Leader <a href="https://reason.com/2021/05/28/do-democrats-realize-they-need-republican-support-to-legalize-marijuana/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Chuck Schumer</a> (D–N.Y.) supposedly plans to soon introduce similar legislation.</p> <p>The similar MORE Act of 2019 (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3884" target="_blank" rel="noopener">H.R.3884</a>) actually passed the House on party lines at the end of 2019, but was never voted on in the Senate.</p> <p>Like the previous bill, the new incarnation contains some provisions that <a href="https://reason.com/2021/05/28/do-democrats-realize-they-need-republican-support-to-legalize-marijuana/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Republicans</a> will ostensibly find objectionable—like a 5 percent federal excise tax on cannabis products, rising to 8 percent after four years, that would be used in part to fund a “‘Community Reinvestment Grant Program’ aimed at subsidizing ‘services for individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs,’ including job training, reentry services, legal aid, literacy programs, youth recreation and mentoring programs, and health education” and pay for “substance use disorder services.” I suspect, however, that the real reason for GOP opposition is that <a href="https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/republican-politicians-are-incorrigible-drug-warriors/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Republicans</a> are incorrigible drug warriors.</p> <p>The days of marijuana prohibition—at least on the federal level—are numbered. The federal government’s war on marijuana (and all other drugs) is neither necessary in a free society nor proper under the Constitution.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/24/neither-necessary-nor-proper/">Neither Necessary nor Proper</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Court Cases Drug War History Cannabis Gonzales v Raich Marihuana Tax Act marijuana Prohibition war-on-drugs Laurence M. Vance They’re Lying: No-Knock Warrant Edition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/theyre-lying-no-knock-warrant-edition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:601c1f9b-f456-6c52-1604-3ce21dafdc7b Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:02:11 +0000 <p>We were warned. Don’t trust anyone with power to endanger liberty. Yet some people who are on board with that, have their own exception - police. But how they use no-knock warrants - and what they claim they use them for - is just more proof that they shouldn’t be trusted either.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/theyre-lying-no-knock-warrant-edition/">They’re Lying: No-Knock Warrant Edition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>We were warned. Don’t trust anyone with power to endanger liberty. Yet some people who are on board with that, have their own exception &#8211; police. But how they use no-knock warrants &#8211; and what they claim they use them for &#8211; is just more proof that they shouldn’t be trusted either.</p> <p>Path to Liberty. Fast Friday Edition: July 23, 2021 <span id="more-37783"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/pJGxr14icFk" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/brutus-iv/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Brutus No. 4 (29 Nov 1787)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/Samuel-Adams-Letter-24Oct1780.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Samuel Adams to James Warren (24 Oct 1780)</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1906#Elliot_1314-02_124" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Old Abraham White &#8211; Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (16 Jan 1788)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/nullify-the-police-state-no-knock-warrant-edition/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Episode: No-Knock Warrants</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/lee-empire-and-nation-letters-from-a-farmer" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Dickinson &#8211; Letter VI from a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1767) </a></p> <p><a href="https://libertas.org/justice-and-due-process/should-home-invasions-for-drugs-continue/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Libertas &#8211; Utah &#8211; drug war</a></p> <p><a href="https://kypolicy.org/banning-no-knock-warrants-first-step-in-addressing-police-violence-demilitarization/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Data &#8211; KY center for economic policy</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Letters_of_Richard_Henry_Lee/2DpLAAAAYAAJ" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Richard Henry Lee to his nephew Thomas Shippen (21 Sept 1791)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/police-are-lying-about-no-knock-warrants/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Amanda Bowers &#8211; Police Are Lying About “No-Knock” Warrants </a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/kyfoplodge4/posts/2911034909163225" rel="noopener" target="_blank">FOP Post</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/kyfoplodge4/posts/2924406684492714" rel="noopener" target="_blank">FOP Again</a></p> <p><a href="https://archive.is/UCXJo" rel="noopener" target="_blank">KY 2020</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-raids-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Texas</a></p> <p><a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1907#Elliot_1314-03_149" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Patrick Henry (5 June 1788)</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072321:8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/theyre-lying-no-knock-warrant-edition-60faf22f6d4b9cc230b20e2a" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-072321:8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1265346079615254528" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/678798e4-f22f-4643-ab23-a264c1b38ec0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/6WI0QdVYyR/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/7hP56xFtIx1c/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/463472ab-74ce-4bdb-b317-a1110022a55f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CRrUybmrl7x/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/0036b8b0-8f21-44ea-b633-41f50291a0fa" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1418609446255665154" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter/show/60faf47d9af9cd568ad75d23" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on MeWe</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6824385667674587136/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/theyre-lying-no-knock-warrant-edition/">They’re Lying: No-Knock Warrant Edition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video No-Knock Warrants Path to Liberty Police Abraham White Brutus No Knock Warrants Patrick Henry Police-State Power Samuel Adams Trust Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 15:50 We were warned. Don’t trust anyone with power to endanger liberty. Yet some people who are on board with that, have their own exception - police. But how they use no-knock warrants - and what they claim they use them for - is just more proof that they ... We were warned. Don’t trust anyone with power to endanger liberty. Yet some people who are on board with that, have their own exception - police. But how they use no-knock warrants - and what they claim they use them for - is just more proof that they shouldn’t be trusted either.<br /> Some Things Never Change https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/some-things-never-change/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:404e35c0-ef7f-fae9-6ce2-973fa0a70c91 Thu, 22 Jul 2021 17:19:13 +0000 <p>Welcome to the new normal. Which is really an awful lot like the old normal.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/some-things-never-change/">Some Things Never Change</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>This month we have a variation on a theme &#8211; the U.S. government spends more money than it has and runs up another massive budget deficit. Some things never change.<span id="more-37709"></span></p> <p>In June, the US government ran another big deficit of $174.16 billion, continuing the trend of overspending and massive budget shortfalls.</p> <p>With three months remaining in fiscal 2021, the budget deficit stands at a staggering $2.24 trillion, according to <a href="https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0621.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">June Monthly Treasury Statement</a>.</p> <p>Despite the fact that the economy has opened back up and the pandemic has receded, for the time being, the U.S. government continues to run massive budget deficits month after month after month.</p> <p>Uncle Sam spent $623 billion in June, a 4.3 percent increase over May’s outlays. That’s over half a trillion dollars in federal spending in just one month. Total spending for fiscal 2021 now stands at $5.29 trillion. Spending is up 6 percent in fiscal 2021 compared to the same period last year.</p> <p>And you thought spending would go back to “normal” after the pandemic.</p> <p>Welcome to the new normal. Which is really an awful lot like the old normal.</p> <p>Republican partisan hacks will pin the blame on Joe Biden, but President Trump oversaw massive budget deficits as well. In fact, when <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/08/01/smoke-and-mirrors-the-greatest-economy-is-built-on-spending-and-debt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Trump was bragging about the greatest economy in history</a>, his administration was running a <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/10/28/more-excuses-while-feds-run-biggest-deficit-in-seven-years/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">budget deficit of just a hair under $1 trillion</a>.</p> <p>The Treasury received $449 billion in June. Treasury receipts were bolstered by the late tax filing deadline this year.</p> <p>As of July 12, <a href="https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the national debt</a> stood at $28.49 trillion.</p> <p>According to <a href="https://www.usdebtclock.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the National Debt Clock</a>, the debt to GDP ratio is 128.23%. Despite the lack of concern in the mainstream, debt has consequences. <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/more-government-debt-means-less-economic-growth/">More government debt means less economic growth</a>. Studies have shown that a debt to GDP ratio of over 90% retards economic growth by about 30%. This throws cold water on the conventional “spend now, worry about the debt later” mantra, along with the frequent claim that “we can grow ourselves out of the debt” now popular on both sides of the aisle in DC.</p> <p>There is no sign that the federal government plans to rein in spending any time soon. Congress continues to wrangle over an infrastructure deal with a $2 trillion price tag. President Biden has also pitched “free” community college and childcare. This all piles on top of the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/03/biden-borrow-and-spend-plan-builds-on-trump-legacy-and-makes-things-even-worse/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$6 trillion in spending packed into the proposed 2022 budget</a>.  Biden has pitched a number of corporate and individual tax increases to pay for the spending, but he’s already had to back off on some of the taxes due to political pressure. That means most of this borrowing and spending will continue to be paid for through an inflation tax that will hit us as the Federal Reserve monetizes this massive debt.  That means more bond purchases and more money printing.</p> <p>Currently, the average American doesn’t really feel the impact of federal spending. Taxes remain low (relatively speaking). The Treasury simply borrows the money and the central bank monetizes the debt. But borrowed money has to be paid back. You <em>will</em> pay the bill – whether through higher taxes down the road or the <a href="https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/the-inflation-tax-is-lowering-our-standard-of-living/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">inflation tax</a> inherent in the Fed’s debt-monetization scheme. And in reality – both.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/some-things-never-change/">Some Things Never Change</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Debt Federal Funding budget deficit government spending National Debt Mike Maharrey Who Do You Think Is Going to “Come and Take It? https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/who-do-you-think-is-going-to-come-and-take-it/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:88322343-ff1b-ed6b-0007-9a1ec9373028 Thu, 22 Jul 2021 17:16:49 +0000 <p>In the area I live, it's not unusual to see a vehicle with a "thin blue line" bumper sticker right next to a "come and take it" pro-gun bumper sticker. I always want to stop these people and ask, "Who the heck do you think is going to come and take it?"</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/who-do-you-think-is-going-to-come-and-take-it/">Who Do You Think Is Going to “Come and Take It?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>In the area I live, it&#8217;s not unusual to see a vehicle with a &#8220;thin blue line&#8221; bumper sticker right next to a &#8220;come and take it&#8221; pro-gun bumper sticker. I always want to stop these people and ask, &#8220;Who the heck do you think is going to come and take it?&#8221;</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Here&#39;s an ugly <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> a lot of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/conservatives?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#conservatives</a> haven&#39;t wrestled with: Cops are big opponents of the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/2ndAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#2ndAmendment</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/liberty?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#liberty</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/thinblueline?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#thinblueline</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/policestate?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#policestate</a> <a href="https://t.co/9tov7xeIB7">pic.twitter.com/9tov7xeIB7</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1417944011780751360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 21, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a class="_blank cvplbd" href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/26/arkansas-governor-vetoes-bill-to-end-state-enforcement-of-federal-gun-control-override-effort-underway/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Arkansas Governor Vetoes Bill to End State Enforcement of Federal Gun Control, Override Effort Underway</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/05/03/the-thin-blue-line-between-you-and-your-guns/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Thin Blue Line Between You and Your Guns</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/29/missouri-sheriffs-association-working-to-kill-2nd-amendment-preservation-act/">Missouri Sheriffs’ Association Working to Kill 2nd Amendment Preservation Act</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/who-do-you-think-is-going-to-come-and-take-it/">Who Do You Think Is Going to “Come and Take It?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute Police Right to Keep and Bear Arms 2nd Amendment Constitutional Carry Police-State Thin Blue Line Mike Maharrey The LA Times Gets It Wrong on Gun Rights https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-la-times-gets-it-wrong-on-gun-rights/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d031ee28-ea72-41cf-4cb6-a164f505f916 Thu, 22 Jul 2021 17:05:03 +0000 <p>What the Times is essentially advocating is a law that prevents people from defending themselves against rapists and murderers.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-la-times-gets-it-wrong-on-gun-rights/">The LA Times Gets It Wrong on Gun Rights</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p class="p1">The <i>Los Angeles Times</i> had an editorial yesterday whose title pretty much says it all: “<a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-07-20/editorial-gun-laws-age-requirement-18-21">18-Year-Olds Shouldn’t Have the Right to Buy Guns</a>.” <span id="more-37779"></span></p> <p class="p1">So, let me see if I correctly understand the <i>Times</i>’s position. An 18-year-old woman is walking down a dark street at night. She is accosted by a much bigger, stronger man who violently grabs her. He is armed with a gun and threatens to kill her if she resists. She isn’t armed because of the <em>Times</em>‘s gun-control law that prohibits 18-year-olds, including women, from buying guns. He proceeds to tear her clothes off and rape her. Hoping that she won’t be killed, she submits to the rape.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p1">What the<em> Times</em> is essentially advocating is a law that prevents people from defending themselves against rapists and murderers. That 18-year-old woman might not be physically strong enough to resist that rapist, but with one Glock 19 that she pulls out of her purse, things are now equalized. Now it doesn’t matter how much bigger and stronger her rapist is. She can stop him from raping her with just one bullet fired into his abdomen.Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, in its editorial the <em>Times</em> failed to answer an important question: How is that 18-year-old woman supposed to defend herself against that rapist? <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p1">Why shouldn’t that 18-year-old woman have the right to defend herself against that rapist? Why should she be required to submit to the rape or else be murdered?</p> <p class="p1">The <i>Times</i> writes:</p> <blockquote> <p class="p3">True, the right to puff on cigarettes or drink alcohol is not written into the U.S. Constitution. But neither is a guarantee that the right to bear arms goes with being a particular age.</p> </blockquote> <p class="p3">Lamentably, those two sentences reflect a woeful lack of understanding of people’s rights and the Constitution. Rights don’t come from the Constitution. They preexist both the Constitution and the federal government that the Constitution called into existence.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p3">Remember: We just celebrated the Fourth of July, the day on which the Declaration of Independence was published in 1776. That document expressed the revolutionary truth that people’s rights come from nature and God, not from government and not from some document that calls government into existence.</p> <p class="p3">The Constitution never purported to establish people’s rights. It simply called into existence a government whose powers were limited to those few powers that were enumerated in the Constitution itself. If a power wasn’t enumerated, it could not be exercised.</p> <p class="p3">Extremely leery about this new government, the American people demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights, which expressly protects the citizenry from the federal government.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Contrary to popular belief, however, especially in the mainstream press, people’s rights also don’t come from the Bill of Rights. The First and Second Amendments, for example, do not give people the rights of free speech, religious liberty, freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, they prohibit the federal government from infringing on these fundamental rights.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p> <p class="p3">In fact, what many in the mainstream press fail to recognize is that if the Bill of Rights had never been enacted, people would still have the rights of free speech, religious liberty, freedom of assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms. That’s because people’s natural, God-given rights preexist government.</p> <p class="p3">Oddly, in its editorial the <i>Times</i> didn’t advocate a minimum age of 21 for military service. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the military permit 18-year-olds to handle guns and even orders them to use automatic weapons to kill people in faraway lands who have never committed any act of violence against the United States? Why does the <i>Times</i> trust those 18-year-olds with guns and not private 18-year-olds?</p> <p class="p3">Finally, in its editorial the <i>Times </i>unfortunately failed to call for an end to the root cause of much of the violence in American society — the much-vaunted war on drugs that unfortunately much of the mainstream press continues to support, notwithstanding the massive violence it has been producing for some 50 years. Rather than prohibit 18-year-olds from defending themselves, why not end this horrific government program and then see if gun violence is still a major problem in America?</p> <p><em>This article was originally published at the</em> <a href="https://www.fff.org/">Future of Freedom Foundation</a>.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-la-times-gets-it-wrong-on-gun-rights/">The LA Times Gets It Wrong on Gun Rights</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Media Right to Keep and Bear Arms Los Angeles Times Mainstream Media Jacob Hornberger Time for Another Fake Debt Ceiling Fight https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/22/time-for-another-fake-debt-ceiling-fight/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:7dfd42d8-b537-8cdd-2e4b-bdb1ed8dbd5f Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:26:14 +0000 <p>Sadly, Congress doesn't even pay lip service to constitutional spending limits. Instead, it pays lip service to the fake debt ceiling.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/22/time-for-another-fake-debt-ceiling-fight/">Time for Another Fake Debt Ceiling Fight</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>The clock is ticking down to another U.S. debt ceiling battle. Of course, the debt ceiling is a fake and a fraud just like the debate surrounding it.<span id="more-36485"></span></p> <p>The debt ceiling theoretically &#8220;limits&#8221; government borrowing and spending. In reality, it does no such thing. And it wouldn&#8217;t be necessary if Congress simply stuck to its constitutionally delegated powers</p> <p>The Congressional Budget Office projects Uncle Sam will run out of money this fall, likely in October or November. “If that occurred, the government would be unable to pay its obligations fully, and it would delay making payments for its activities, default on its debt obligations, or both,” the CBO said in a statement.</p> <p>In 2019, Congress suspended the debt limit for two years. That suspension ends on July 31.</p> <p>Congress imposed the first debt ceiling in 1917. The Second Liberty Bond Act capped debt at $11.5 billion. This was supposed to put some kind of restraint on government borrowing. Of course, it didn’t. Every time the debt approaches the ceiling, Congress simply raises it. Between 1962 and 2011, lawmakers jacked up the debt “limit” 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service.</p> <p>In 2013, Congress came up with a new trick. Instead of raising the debt ceiling, it just suspended it. Congress set the last actual debt limit in 2014 with a built-in “auto-adjust.” The auto-adjust ended in March 2015 with the debt ceiling set at $18.1 trillion. Since then, Congress has suspended the debt ceiling three times.</p> <p>As of July 20, <a href="https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the national debt stood at $28.49 trillion</a>.</p> <p>When the current debt ceiling suspension ends on July 31, the U.S. government will no longer be able to borrow money. According to the CBO, it will be able to limp along until this fall using “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/yellen-says-prepared-launch-treasury-debt-limit-measures-2021-07-13/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">extraordinary measures</a>.” According to <em>Reuters,</em> these range from &#8220;halting the issuance of special securities to state and local governments to suspending the daily reinvestment of Treasury securities held by a government employee retirement fund and the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund.&#8221;</p> <p>It’s not completely clear how long the government can get by with accounting gimmicks. The CBO said it will depend on actual revenue collection and government spending, which can differ significantly from projections.</p> <p>Given that the debt ceiling has never meaningfully restrained borrowing and spending, why doesn’t Congress just scrap it altogether?</p> <p>I think there are two reasons.</p> <p>First, doing away with the debt ceiling would expose America’s fiscal irresponsibility to the world. We all know the federal government has <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/07/16/big-spenders-get-worse-every-year-the-history-of-growth-since-1940/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a bipartisan spending problem</a>. But the debt ceiling creates the illusion of responsibility. It’s like a magic trick. We all know it’s not really magic. It’s an illusion created by the magician. But we like to believe it’s magic. It makes us feel good. The debt ceiling is an illusion that allows Americans to feel like their “representatives” are acting responsibly.</p> <p>Second, the debt ceiling is ready-made for political theater. And there’s nothing politicians love more than political theater.</p> <p>Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has already indicated that the Republicans aren’t going to vote for a debt ceiling increase because of the <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/the-new-normal-is-now-6-trillion-in-federal-spending/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Democrats’ wild spending spree</a> that he called a “free-for-all for taxes and spending.”</p> <p>“I can’t imagine there will be a single Republican voting to raise the debt ceiling after what we’ve been experiencing,” McConnell said.</p> <p>It’s also a nice tool Republicans can use to get what they want out of the infrastructure deal Congress is currently haggling over.</p> <p>Of course, this is all rank hypocrisy. The Republicans borrowed and spent like drunken sailors during the Trump years and they approved the last debt ceiling suspension. Even today, Republicans don&#8217;t oppose the infrastructure bill. They just want it to be their kind of infrastructure bill.</p> <p>Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called McConnell’s remarks “shameless, cynical and totally political.” Because we all know the Democrats are just trying to do what’s best for America. No political motivation there at all!</p> <p>Failure to raise the debt limit would have “catastrophic economic consequences,” as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen put it.</p> <blockquote><p>It would be utterly unprecedented in American history for the United States government to default on its legal obligations.”</p></blockquote> <p>Yellen’s not wrong. And this is exactly why Congress will raise the debt ceiling – or simply kick the can down the road by suspending it again.</p> <p>In the meantime, brace yourself for hot political rhetoric and a lot of finger-pointing across the political aisle. We may even get another mythical government shutdown. But trust me, they won’t shut down any of the important things. The NSA will keep spying on you. The IRS will continue to collect taxes from you. The wars will rage on. And <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/10/01/congress-gets-paid-during-a-shutdown-while-staffers-dont-heres-why/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">members of Congress will continue to collect their paychecks</a>. There’s always money available for the things the government really wants to do.</p> <p>All of this wrangling over the debt ceiling wouldn&#8217;t even be necessary if Congress followed the Constitution. It features a built-in limit on spending &#8211; <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the enumerated powers</a>. Mos to the things that Congress borrows and spends for aren&#8217;t authorized by the Constitution.</p> <p>Consider the massive infrastructure bill currently under debate in Congress. The Constitution doesn&#8217;t delegate any power to Congress to spend money on &#8220;infrastructure.&#8221; In fact, President James Madison vetoed the Bonus Bill of 1817 – a plan that called for funding the construction of various roads, bridges, and canals throughout the country. In his <a href="http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">veto message</a>, Madison asserted the Constitution does not delegate power for such “internal improvements.”</p> <blockquote><p>The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.</p></blockquote> <p>What about the commerce clause, you might ask? Madison addressed this as well.</p> <blockquote><p>“The power to regulate commerce among the several States” cannot include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.</p></blockquote> <p>How about general welfare?</p> <p>Nope. Not according to Madison.</p> <blockquote><p>To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.</p></blockquote> <p>The Constitution puts strict limits on congressional spending. If Congress stayed within those limits, the government could easily pay for everything with the taxes it collects. It wouldn&#8217;t need to borrow billions of dollars every single month. And we wouldn&#8217;t need a fake debt ceiling to control borrowing.</p> <p>Sadly, Congress doesn&#8217;t even pay lip service to constitutional spending limits. Instead, it pays lip service to the fake debt ceiling.</p> <p>The whole debt ceiling debate is nothing but political gamesmanship. So, grab a chair. Pop some popcorn. And enjoy the show.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/22/time-for-another-fake-debt-ceiling-fight/">Time for Another Fake Debt Ceiling Fight</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Current Events Federal Funding Congress Debt Ceiling Government Spending Infrastructure James Madison national debt Mike Maharrey Missouri Governor Vetoes Bill to Eliminate State Conformity with IRS Section 280E for Marijuana Businesses https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/missouri-governor-vetoes-bill-to-eliminate-state-conformity-with-irs-section-280e-for-marijuana-businesses/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:d039f593-11c5-28ca-ca6a-ec8cf1a83c79 Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:17:36 +0000 <p>His veto revolved around tax relief provisions for businesses impacted by city-wide or county-wide public health restrictions. He said that the section's "broad construction" would lead to several problems and create  “significant unintended consequences that could greatly harm localities.”</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/missouri-governor-vetoes-bill-to-eliminate-state-conformity-with-irs-section-280e-for-marijuana-businesses/">Missouri Governor Vetoes Bill to Eliminate State Conformity with IRS Section 280E for Marijuana Businesses</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>JEFFERSON CITY,</strong> Mo. (July 21, 2021) –Missouri to Gov. Mike Parson vetoed a bill that would eliminate the state’s conformity with Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 280E. The enactment of this law would have implemented a small but important state tax relief measure for medical marijuana businesses.<span id="more-37761"></span></p> <p>Federal tax Section 280E forbids businesses from deducting otherwise ordinary business expenses from gross income associated with the “trafficking” of Schedule I or II substances, as defined by the Controlled Substances Act. The IRS applies Section 280E to state-legal cannabis businesses. That means that marijuana growers, processors and sellers are unable to deduct expenses from their taxes that businesses in other sectors can write off. The only deductions that cannabis businesses can take are the costs of goods sold.</p> <p>Missouri policy currently reflects this federal approach.</p> <p>Sen. Andrew Koenig (R-St. Louis) introduced Senate Bill 226 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MO/bill/SB226/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB226</a>) in January to make several changes in the state tax code. Under one provision in the proposed law, licensed state cannabis firms would be allowed to take deductions on their Missouri taxes, just like any other business. Missouri Medical Cannabis Trade Association executive director Andrew Mullins <a href="https://www.marijuanamoment.net/missouri-lawmakers-send-medical-marijuana-tax-deduction-bill-to-governor/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told <em>Marijuana Moment</em></a> the bill would simply “put medical cannabis businesses on a level playing field with all other small businesses across the state when it comes to taxes.”</p> <p>The enactment of SB226 would have removed a barrier facing Missourians who want to start marijuana businesses in the state by lowering their tax burden. This would further incentivize the market and allow it to expand despite continued federal prohibition efforts.</p> <p>Different versions of the bill were passed in the House and Senate. A conference committee hammered out a compromise that was approved on May 14. It went to Parson’s desk on May 25. On July 9, the Republican governor vetoed the bill.</p> <p>Parson didn&#8217;t mention the marijuana provisions in his <a href="https://governor.mo.gov/media/pdf/sb-226-veto-letter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">veto message</a>. His veto revolved around tax relief provisions for businesses impacted by city-wide or county-wide public health restrictions. He said that the section&#8217;s &#8220;broad construction&#8221; would lead to several problems and create  “significant unintended consequences that could greatly harm localities.”</p> <p>Parson said he supported several provisions in the bill, including a sales tax exemption for some cancer treatment devices, changes to aircraft property taxation, and changes in sales tax remittance filing periods. He did not mention support for the provisions relating to cannabis.</p> <p><b>EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION</b></p> <p>The fact that Missouri has a medical marijuana program in the first place flies in the face of federal cannabis prohibition.</p> <p>Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate cannabis within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>The legalization of medical marijuana in Missouri removed a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, but federal prohibition remains in effect. This is significant because FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. When states stop enforcing marijuana laws, they sweep away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.</p> <p><b>A GROWING MOVEMENT</b></p> <p>Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. Michigan followed suit when <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/11/michigan-votes-to-legalize-marijuana-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">voters legalized cannabis for general use</a> in 2018. Vermont <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/01/signed-as-law-vermont-legalizes-recreational-marijuana-foundation-to-nullify-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">became the first state</a> to legalize marijuana through a legislative act in 2018. <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-illinois-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Illinois followed suit i</a>n 2019. New Jersey, Montana and Arizona all <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/04/thirty-six-and-counting-more-states-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legalized recreational marijuana through ballot measures</a> in the 2020 election. Earlier this year, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/to-the-governor-new-york-bill-legalizes-marijuana-for-adult-use-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-new-mexico-bill-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Mexico</a>, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/virginia-legalizes-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Virginia</a> and <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/connecticut-becomes-the-18th-state-to-legalize-marijuana-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Connecticut</a> legalized marijuana through legislative action.</p> <p>With 36 states allowing cannabis for medical use, and 18 legalizing for adult recreational use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.</p> <p>The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations, or mandates down our throats.</p> <p>The passage of SB226 demonstrates another important strategic reality, Parson&#8217;s veto notwithstanding. Once a state legalizes marijuana – even if only in a very limited way – the law tends to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand expands. That creates pressure to further relax state law. These new laws represent a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/missouri-governor-vetoes-bill-to-eliminate-state-conformity-with-irs-section-280e-for-marijuana-businesses/">Missouri Governor Vetoes Bill to Eliminate State Conformity with IRS Section 280E for Marijuana Businesses</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills cannabis Marijuana Missouri SB226 Mike Maharrey Louisiana Politicians Cave to Law Enforcement, Uphold Veto of “Constitutional Carry” https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/louisiana-politicians-cave-to-law-enforcement-uphold-veto-of-constitutional-carry/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:27a04ada-1e70-59e6-567c-02ffca94d83e Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:12:38 +0000 <p>Republicans Sen. Louie Bernard, Sen. Patrick Connick, and Sen. Franklin Foil flip-flopped and voted no on the veto override after initially voting to pass SB118. Republican Sen. Ronnie Johns was absent for the vote. The lone Democrat to change his vote was Sen. Gary Smith.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/louisiana-politicians-cave-to-law-enforcement-uphold-veto-of-constitutional-carry/">Louisiana Politicians Cave to Law Enforcement, Uphold Veto of “Constitutional Carry”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>BATON ROUGE</strong>, La. (July 21, 2021) – Pressured by law enforcement, Louisiana Senators caved and failed to override Gov. John Bel Edwards&#8217;s veto of a  “Constitutional Carry” bill that would have made it legal for Louisianans to carry a concealed firearm without a license and foster an environment hostile to federal gun control.<span id="more-37766"></span></p> <p>Sen. Jay Morris (R-West Monroe) introduced Senate Bill 118 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/bill/SB118/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB118</a>) on March 30. The proposed change in the law would allow Louisiana residents 21 and over who are not prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. Under the proposed law, the state would continue issuing conceal carry permits for residents who want to carry in other states that have CCDW reciprocity with Louisiana.</p> <p>The Democrat governor&#8217;s veto of the bill wasn&#8217;t surprising, but the Senate&#8217;s failure to override it was pretty shocking. The Republican-dominated Senate initially passed SB118 by a <a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/rollcall/SB118/id/1089262" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vote of 27-9</a>. The veto override failed by <a href="https://legiscan.com/LA/rollcall/SB118/id/1105269" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a 23-15 margin</a>, three votes short of the 26 necessary to overturn the veto.</p> <p>Republicans Sen. Louie Bernard, Sen. Patrick Connick, and Sen. Franklin Foil flip-flopped and voted no on the veto override after initially voting to pass SB118. Republican Sen. Ronnie Johns was absent for the vote. The lone Democrat to change his vote was Sen. Gary Smith.</p> <p>“Their betrayal of gun owners speaks VOLUMES, as they only voted ‘pro-gun’ earlier in the session when their votes didn’t matter. Gun owners will remember this backstab at the ballot box,&#8221; <a href="https://www.gunowners.org/betrayal-five-louisiana-legislators-fail-gun-owners-in-veto-override-session/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gun Owners of America</a> said in a statement.</p> <p>Police opposition to permitless carry put pressure on senators to sustain the veto. According to <a href="https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/politics/louisiana-senate-rejects-veto-override-on-constitutional-carry/289-9df92c45-76ec-4c9a-b9f0-0502f5b1a6f2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">4WWL TV in New Orleans</a>, &#8220;Dozens of officers, police chiefs, sheriffs and deputies called on lawmakers to not override the veto and to keep curent concealed carry requirements in place.&#8221;</p> <p>At least one senator was influenced by police opposition to permitless carry. According to 4WWL, Sen. Connick said he spoke with law enforcement in his area that were in opposition to overturning the veto.</p> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL GUN CONTROL</strong></p> <p>While permitless carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway.</p> <p>The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”</p> <p>Less restrictive state gun laws will likely have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce any future federal gun control, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts.</p> <p>State actions such as passing SB118 would lower barriers for those wanting the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/louisiana-politicians-cave-to-law-enforcement-uphold-veto-of-constitutional-carry/">Louisiana Politicians Cave to Law Enforcement, Uphold Veto of “Constitutional Carry”</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Concealed Carry Constitutional Carry firearms guns Louisiana SB118 Mike Maharrey Power Corrupts https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/power-corrupts/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:9c07dade-10eb-ec03-d37e-817ab30ef3a3 Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:04:44 +0000 <p>why are people so quick to disregard this poignant warning when it comes to politicians?</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/power-corrupts/">Power Corrupts</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Most people nod in agreement when they hear Lord Acton&#8217;s famous warning, &#8220;Power tends to corrupt&#8230;&#8221; So, why are people so quick to disregard this poignant warning when it comes to politicians?</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">People forget that the power you give politicians to do things you like today &#8211; will be used by other politicians in the future. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/powercorrupts?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#powercorrupts</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/liberty?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#liberty</a> <a href="https://t.co/OKBPSX9PYN">pic.twitter.com/OKBPSX9PYN</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1417533876222586880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 20, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/29/you-should-barely-know-the-federal-government-exists/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">You Should Barely Know the Federal Government Exists</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/05/power-corrupts-so-dont-trust-anyone-who-has-it/">Power Corrupts. So Don’t Trust Anyone Who Has it</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/01/having-a-muscle-car-turned-me-into-a-jerk/">Having a Muscle Car Turned Me Into a Jerk</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/power-corrupts/">Power Corrupts</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute Republocrats government power Lord Acton Politicians Power Mike Maharrey Court Packing: Unnecessary and Improper https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/court-packing-unnecessary-and-improper/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:439e70b0-c8cf-5f2a-f3c7-5e2296b9e450 Wed, 21 Jul 2021 17:47:43 +0000 <p>Is Court Packing Constitutional? Based on how they want to use it - no, and it’s not even close. Expanding the size of the court for logistical reasons is authorized by the Constitution and has been done in the past, but doing so in order to drive political outcomes is neither necessary nor proper, and should be soundly rejected.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/court-packing-unnecessary-and-improper/">Court Packing: Unnecessary and Improper</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Is Court Packing Constitutional? Based on how they want to use it &#8211; no, and it’s not even close. Expanding the size of the court for logistical reasons is authorized by the Constitution and has been done in the past, but doing so in order to drive political outcomes is neither necessary nor proper, and should be soundly rejected.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: July 21, 2021 <span id="more-37768"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/vy7G_RNpqyM?start=69" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/kurtlash1/status/1315311492699435008" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Kurt Lash on FDR Packing</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/why-supreme-court-has-nine-justices-opinion-1540685" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Keith Whittington &#8211; Court expansion history</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-17-02-0202" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Madison &#8211; Report of 1800</a></p> <p><a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/20/court-packing-is-unconstitutional/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Randy Barnett &#8211; Court Packing is Unconstitutional</a></p> <p><a href="https://lawliberty.org/is-court-packing-constitutional/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Michael Rappaport &#8211; Is Court Packing Unconstitutional?</a></p> <p><a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10562" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Congressional Research Service </a></p> <p>Episode &#8211; https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/07/necessary-and-proper-not-anything-and-everything/ </p> <p><a href="https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/academics/research/faculty-research/new-deal/legislation/sen060737.htm" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Senate Judiciary Report on the packing plan (June 7, 1937)</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-071921:1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/no-representation-antifederalist-brutus-no-4-60f5bab00c435f54bda68c67" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-071921:1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1263912468188598272" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/aca6b571-926a-468e-a438-3933c0f80050" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/6RtlbooAj_/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/2I9V3kkSb1Gq/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/42b6eb61-c8d2-4254-a29b-311d2c9fba9d" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/8259c1f1-ae8d-4d60-a291-d9108c6a645e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1417159043802599428" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CRhIThyrkUy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/court-packing-unnecessary-and-improper/">Court Packing: Unnecessary and Improper</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Judiciary Necessary and Proper Clause Path to Liberty Court Packing John Marshall necessary and proper Principles and Incidents Supreme court Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 34:45 Is Court Packing Constitutional? Based on how they want to use it - no, and it’s not even close. Expanding the size of the court for logistical reasons is authorized by the Constitution and has been done in the past, Is Court Packing Constitutional? Based on how they want to use it - no, and it’s not even close. Expanding the size of the court for logistical reasons is authorized by the Constitution and has been done in the past, but doing so in order to drive political outcomes is neither necessary nor proper, and should be soundly rejected.<br /> California Assembly Committee Approves Bill to Legalize Psychedelic Drugs Despite Federal Prohibition https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/california-assembly-committee-approves-bill-to-legalize-psychedelic-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:7d81f1ac-6846-ad97-6207-af61ab115bb8 Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:53:21 +0000 <p>Last week, a second California Assembly committee passed a bill that would legalize possession of several psychedelic drugs including LSD and “magic mushrooms,” despite federal prohibition on the same.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/california-assembly-committee-approves-bill-to-legalize-psychedelic-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/">California Assembly Committee Approves Bill to Legalize Psychedelic Drugs Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>SACRAMENTO</strong>, Calif. (July 21, 2021) – Last week, a second California Assembly committee passed a bill that would legalize possession of several psychedelic drugs including LSD and “magic mushrooms,” despite federal prohibition on the same.<span id="more-37759"></span></p> <p>Sen. Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco) introduced Senate Bill 519 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB519/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB519</a>) on Feb. 17. The legislation would legalize and make lawful the possession and personal use of the following substances by adults 21 and over.</p> <ul> <li>psilocybin</li> <li>psilocyn</li> <li>MDMA</li> <li>LSD</li> <li>DMT</li> <li>mescaline (excluding peyote)</li> <li>ibogaine</li> </ul> <p>Under the proposed law “social sharing” of these substances would also be legal.</p> <p>On July 13, the Assembly Committee on Health passed SB519 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB519/id/1104684" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an 8-4 vote</a>. It previously <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB519/id/1089518" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cleared the Senate by a vote of 21-16</a>.</p> <p>“Under SB 519, we will no longer arrest people and incarcerate them for the simple personal possession of psychedelics for personal or shared use,” Wiener told the committee on Tuesday. “That’s really the question here: Do we believe that we should be arresting someone because they possess psychedelics for personal use? I don’t think we should. Frankly, I think most people don’t think we should be doing that.”</p> <p>SB519 originally included expungement provisions that would dismiss and seal pending and prior convictions for offenses that would be made lawful by the passage of the bill. That language was stripped from the bill by an amendment from the sponsor.</p> <p>Under the proposed law, the Department of Public Health would be required to establish a working group “to study and make recommendations regarding possible regulatory systems that California could adopt to promote safe and equitable access to certain substances in permitted legal contexts.” Its recommendations would be due by January 1, 2024.</p> <p>“Policy should be based on science and common sense, not fear and stigma,” Wiener said in a press release when he introduced the bill. “The War on Drugs and mass incarceration are destructive and failed policies, and we must end them. Moreover, given the severity of our mental health crisis, we shouldn’t be criminalizing people for using drugs that have shown significant promise in treating mental health conditions.”</p> <p>The introduction of SB519 follows <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/oregon-votes-to-decriminalize-cocaine-heroin-and-other-hard-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a successful ballot measure that decriminalized a number of drugs, including heroin and cocaine in Oregon</a>.</p> <p>Last year, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/ann-arbor-becomes-third-city-to-decriminalize-psilocybin-despite-federal-prohibition/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ann Arbor became the third city in the U.S. to decriminalize “magic mushrooms.”</a> Oakland and Denver have also effectively decriminalized psilocybin – a substance hallucinogenic substance found in certain mushrooms.  A number of studies have shown psilocybin to be effective in the treatment of depression, PTSD, chronic pain and addiction. For instance, <a href="https://maps.org/other-psychedelic-research/211-psilocybin-research/psilocybin-studies-in-progress/1268-johns_hopkins_study_of_psilocybin_in_cancer_patients" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a Johns Hopkins study</a> found that “psilocybin produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer.”</p> <p>Decriminalization and legalization efforts at the state and local level are moving forward despite the federal government’s prohibition of these various substances.</p> <p><b>LEGALITY</b></p> <p>Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains the complete prohibition of many of the drugs on SB519’s decriminalization list and heavily regulates others. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate such substances within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.</p> <p>In effect, the passage of SB519 would end criminal enforcement of laws prohibiting the possession of these drugs in California. As we’ve seen with marijuana and hemp, when states and localities stop enforcing laws banning a substance, the federal government finds it virtually impossible to maintain prohibition. For instance, FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By curtailing or ending state prohibition, states sweep part of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly annual budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution either. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state and local assistance, and the same will likely hold true with other drugs.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB519 now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving to the full Assembly for consideration.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/california-assembly-committee-approves-bill-to-legalize-psychedelic-drugs-despite-federal-prohibition/">California Assembly Committee Approves Bill to Legalize Psychedelic Drugs Despite Federal Prohibition</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War State Bills California Legalize psilocybin Psychedelics War on Drugs Mike Maharrey National Park Service Joining the National Surveillance State https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/20/national-park-service-joining-the-national-surveillance-state/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:821f7137-3e49-9127-09ee-8466ddc7f6ff Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:00:56 +0000 <p>According to the memo, the NPS and will keep everyone's personal information for 15 years at which time they promise to delete or shred it.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/20/national-park-service-joining-the-national-surveillance-state/">National Park Service Joining the National Surveillance State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>The U.S. National Park Service is joining the ever-growing national surveillance state.<span id="more-36482"></span></p> <p>According to a <a href="https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-14985.pdf?utm_campaign=pi+subscription+mailing+list&amp;utm_source=federalregister.gov&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener">notice</a> published in the <i>Federal Register</i>, the Department of the Interior (DOI) is turning the National Park Service (NPS) into a mirror image of the NSA, FBI, DHS and every other three-letter spy agency you can think of.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Interior DOI is issuing a public notice of its intent to modify the National Park Service (NPS) Privacy Act system of records, INTERIOR/NPS-1, Special Use Permits.&#8221;</i></p></blockquote> <p>This so-called modification of special records permits will allow law enforcement to collect a disturbing amount of personal information on national park visitors.</p> <p>As <i>Nextgov</i> <a href="https://www.nextgov.com/analytics-data/2021/07/national-park-service-share-special-use-permit-data-white-house/183719/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">points out</a>, anyone wishing to get a permit to use one of America&#8217;s 423 national parks will have all their personal information sent to the White House.</p> <blockquote><p><em>&#8220;The NPS is making it easier to share more data with the White House and other federal agencies on applications and approvals of special use permits for parks spaces.&#8221;</em></p></blockquote> <p>America&#8217;s absurd War on Terror is now targeting picnics, family gatherings, weddings, etc.</p> <blockquote><p><em>&#8220;People interested in using a park for a specific purpose at a specific time generally have to obtain a special use permit. NPS issues permits for three types of uses: standard events like weddings, sports, picnics and family gatherings; special events like demonstrations, races, tournaments and the like; and construction, research and utility work.&#8221;</em></p></blockquote> <p>When park users apply for such permits, the system collects a wealth of data needed to process the application, including:</p> <ul> <li>Name, organization, Social Security number, Tax Identification Number, date of birth, address, telephone number, fax number, email address, person’s position title.</li> <li>Information of proposed activity including park alpha code, permit number, date, location, number of participants and vehicles, type of use, equipment, support personnel for the activity, company, project name and type, fees, liability insurance information.</li> <li>Payment information including amounts paid, credit card number, credit card expiration date, check number, money order number, bank or financial institution, account number, payment reference number and tracking ID number.</li> <li>Information on special activities including number of minors, livestock, aircraft type, special effects, special effect technician’s license and permit number, stunts, unusual or hazardous activities.</li> <li>Information on driver’s license including number, state and expiration date.</li> <li>Vehicle information including year, make, color, weight, plate number and insurance information.</li> </ul> <p>According to the notice in the Federal Register, the purpose in collecting everyone&#8217;s personal information is &#8220;to provide park superintendents with information to approve or deny requests for activities on NPS managed park lands.&#8221;</p> <p>Does anyone really believe park rangers or campground hosts need visitors&#8217; SSNs, DOBs, bank account numbers, etc., so they can approve or deny a person&#8217;s request to use our national park[s]?</p> <p><i>Nextgov</i> does a great job of describing the NPS collecting park visitors&#8217; personal information as being an innocuous &#8220;update.&#8221; It is not.</p> <p>Page 7 of the notice reveals that the NPS will routinely send everyone&#8217;s personal information to numerous federal agencies.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DOI as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3).&#8221; </i></p></blockquote> <p>Below is an abbreviated description of the federal agencies that will routinely have access to permit application park visitors&#8217; personal information.</p> <p>A. The Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other Federal agency. Any other Federal agency appearing before the Office of Hearings and Appeals.</p> <p>B. A congressional office when requesting information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.</p> <p>C. The Executive Office of the President.</p> <p>D. Any criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authority (whether Federal, state, territorial, local, tribal or foreign) when a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law – criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature, and the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.</p> <p>E. An official of another Federal agency.</p> <p>F. Federal, state, territorial, local, tribal, or foreign agencies that have requested information relevant or necessary to the hiring, firing or retention of an employee or contractor, or the issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant or other benefit, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.</p> <p>G. Representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration.</p> <p>H. State, territorial and local governments and tribal organizations to provide information needed in response to a court order.</p> <p>I. An expert, consultant, grantee, or contractor (including employees of the contractor) of DOI that performs services requiring access to these records on DOI’s behalf to carry out the purposes of the system.</p> <p>J. Appropriate agencies, entities of the Federal Government.</p> <p>K. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when DOI determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency.</p> <p>L. The Office of Management and Budget.</p> <p>N. The news media and the public, with the approval of the Public Affairs Officer in consultation with counsel and the Senior Agency Official for Privacy.</p> <p>According to the memo, the NPS and will keep everyone&#8217;s personal information for 15 years at which time they promise to delete or shred it.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;Retention of records with short-term operational value and not considered essential for the ongoing management of land and cultural and natural resources are destroyed 15 years after closure. Paper records are disposed of by shredding or pulping, and records contained on electronic media are degaussed or erased in accordance with 384 Departmental Manual 1.&#8221;</i></p></blockquote> <p>Does anyone really think that picnics, family gatherings and weddings pose a threat to our Homeland?</p> <p>There is one bit of good news to come out of turning the NPS into a spy agency and that is national park visitors can request a copy of what records the Feds have on them if they include the specific bureau or office that keeps those records in an information request.</p> <blockquote><p><i>&#8220;An individual requesting records on himself or herself should send a signed, written inquiry to the applicable System Manager identified above. The request must include the specific bureau or office that maintains the record to facilitate location of the applicable records. The request envelope and letter should both be clearly marked “PRIVACY ACT REQUEST FOR ACCESS.”</i><i> </i></p></blockquote> <p>And as you can see from the list above, it is going to be a crapshoot to guess which specific federal agency or which branch of law enforcement was spying on your picnic, family gathering, or wedding.</p> <p>It is hard to imagine that when Congress created the National Park Service in 1872, they would have envisioned that the White House would turn it into a spy agency.</p> <p>As Americans everywhere <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-parks-overcrowding-yellowstone-yosemite/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rush to visit our national parks</a>, how many of them will care that the Feds are collecting vast amounts of personal information about them and storing it for 15 years?</p> <p>Do Americans care enough to stop DHS from turning formerly benign government institutions like the <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-postal-service-social-media.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U.S. Postal Service</a> and the National Park Service into federal spying agencies? Only time will tell.</p> <p>This article was <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2021/07/national-park-service-to-spy-on-picnics.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">originally published at MassPrivateI</a>,</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/20/national-park-service-joining-the-national-surveillance-state/">National Park Service Joining the National Surveillance State</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Federal Agencies NPS National Park Service Surveillance jprivate Kentucky Bill Would End State Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/kentucky-bill-would-end-state-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ac2900da-8fb3-e93a-1de0-135c9d112d56 Tue, 20 Jul 2021 16:07:02 +0000 <p>The legislation would prohibit police officers, state employees, and employees of any political subdivision of the state from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of any new “federal ban” on firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories. It would also prohibit the expenditure or allocation of public funds or resources for such enforcement.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/kentucky-bill-would-end-state-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control/">Kentucky Bill Would End State Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>FRANKFORT</strong>, Ky. (July 20, 2021) &#8211; A bill prefiled in the Kentucky House for the 2022 session would ban enforcement of future federal gun control. This would take a major step toward bringing such federal acts to an end within the state.<span id="more-37707"></span></p> <p>Rep. Josh Bray (R-Mt. Vernon) and Rep. Russell Webber (R-Shepherdsville) prefiled Bill Request 171 (<a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/22rs/prefiled/BR171.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BR171</a>) on June 25. The legislation would prohibit police officers, state employees, and employees of any political subdivision of the state from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of any new “federal ban” on firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories. It would also prohibit the expenditure or allocation of public funds or resources for such enforcement.</p> <p>HB258 defines “federal ban” as &#8220;a federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that is enacted, adopted, or becomes effective on or after January 1, 2021, or a new and more restrictive interpretation of a law that existed on January 21, 2021, that infringes upon, calls into question, prohibits, restricts, or requires individual licensure for or registration of the purchase, ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessory.&#8221;</p> <p>The legislation is similar to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/04/signed-as-law-montana-prohibits-state-enforcement-of-any-new-federal-gun-control/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a law enacted in Montana</a> this year.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The Commonwealth of Kentucky can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>BR171 will be introduced during the 2022 legislative session. At that time, it will receive a bill number and a committee assignment. As a first step, it must pass the committee by a majority vote.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/kentucky-bill-would-end-state-enforcement-of-future-federal-gun-control/">Kentucky Bill Would End State Enforcement of Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills 2nd Amendment Federal Gun Control firearms Kentucky Mike Maharrey California Assembly Committees Pass Bill to Close Qualified Immunity Loopholes in State Law https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/california-assembly-committees-pass-bill-to-close-qualified-immunity-loopholes-in-state-law/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:095a18d9-4011-edff-3262-b099682d471c Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:55:06 +0000 <p>SB2 would close the loopholes in the current law and create a legitimate alternative pathway to sue law enforcement officers without qualified immunity as a defense. It would also create a framework to strip police officers who violate individual rights of their right to work law enforcement in California.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/california-assembly-committees-pass-bill-to-close-qualified-immunity-loopholes-in-state-law/">California Assembly Committees Pass Bill to Close Qualified Immunity Loopholes in State Law</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>SACRAMENTO</strong>, Calif. (July 20, 2021) – Two California Assembly committees have passed a bill that would create a process to sue police officers for violations of rights in state court without the possibility of “qualified immunity” as a defense.<span id="more-37758"></span></p> <p>Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) introduced Senate Bill 2 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB2/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB2</a>) last December. The legislation would amend existing state law that creates a cause of action in state courts to sue a “person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes or attempts to interfere, by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state.”</p> <p>The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act was originally enacted to address “hate crimes,” but it has also been used to sue police officers who violate individual rights. Qualified immunity is not a defense under the law, but <a href="https://missionlocal.org/2021/05/this-34-year-old-law-is-californias-best-hope-to-end-qualified-immunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to <em>Mission Local</em></a>, “It still grants police officers immunity for certain major offenses, critics say, and it has been ‘mangled’ by the courts over its three-decade lifespan.”</p> <p>While the current law does not provide a qualified immunity defense, it grants “absolute immunity” to police officers who plant evidence, use excessive force on prisoners, or deny prisoners proper medical care. San Diego-based civil rights attorney Julia Yoo told <em>Mission Local</em>, the law provides these immunities to “law-breaking police officers who engage in the most egregious misconduct.”</p> <p>“It’s not even a qualified immunity. You can’t file a lawsuit — period,” she said.</p> <p>SB2 would close the loopholes in the current law and create a legitimate alternative pathway to sue law enforcement officers without qualified immunity as a defense. It would also create a framework to strip police officers who violate individual rights of their right to work law enforcement in California.</p> <p>In May, the Senate passed SB2 <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB2/id/1086115" target="_blank" rel="noopener">by a 26-9 vote</a>. On July 6, the Assembly Judiciary Committee approved the measure with some technical amendments by <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB2/id/1104301" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an 8-2 vote</a>. The following week, the Assembly Public Safety Committee passed SB2 by <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/SB2/id/1104734" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a 6-2 vote</a>.</p> <p><strong>The Process </strong></p> <p>Typically, people sue police for using excessive force or other types of misconduct through the federal court system under the U.S. Bill of Rights. But <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/13/how-federal-courts-gave-us-qualified-immunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">federal courts created a qualified immunity defense out of thin air</a>, making it nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers responsible for actions taken in the line of duty. In order to move ahead with a suit, the plaintiff must establish that it was “clearly established” that the officer’s action was unconstitutional. The “clearly established” test erects an almost insurmountable hurdle to those trying to prove excessive force or a violation of their rights.</p> <p>California law creates an alternative path in state court. The passage of SB2 would significantly strengthen that law in its application to law enforcement officers.</p> <p><strong>In Practice</strong></p> <p>It remains unclear how the state legal process will play out in practice.</p> <p>The first question is whether people will actually utilize the state courts instead of the federal process. Under the original constitutional system, it would have never been a federal issue to begin with. Regulation of police powers was clearly delegated to the states, not the federal government. But with the advent of the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/05/30/the-incorporation-doctrine-broke-the-constitutional-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">incorporation doctrine</a>, people reflexively run to federal courts. But by removing the qualified immunity hurdle, it should incentivize people to take advantage of the state system.</p> <p>The second question is if police officers will be able to have cases removed to federal jurisdiction in order to take advantage of qualified immunity.</p> <p>Language in California’ law opens that door. People can sue in state court for violations of the U.S. Constitution or laws of the United States, as well as the California state constitution. All matters regarding the U.S. Constitution or federal law can be remanded to federal courts. To avoid this, plaintiffs would have to sue based solely on the California Constitution, its bill of rights and the laws of the state. The only way to avoid federal jurisdiction and ensure federal qualified immunity doesn’t come into play would be to limit the suit to <strong>state</strong> constitutional issues.</p> <p>Even if the suit is focused on state law and the Massachusetts constitution, state and local law enforcement officers working <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/04/16/joint-law-enforcement-task-forces-are-creating-a-national-police-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">on joint state/federal task forces</a> would almost certainly be able to move the case to federal court. They are effectively treated as federal agents.</p> <p>One attorney told the Tenth Amendment Center that it might be possible for officers to have their case removed to federal court to consider U.S. constitutional ramifications. But he said even then, he thinks federal courts would have to respect the state law prohibiting qualified immunity as a defense. The federal court would likely have to apply the state law as the state intended, even though the federal court might well be able to decide whether or not a U.S. constitutional violation had taken place.</p> <p>Other lawyers we talked to said it wasn’t clear to them that the federal courts would have to honor the state statute. It is possible that the federal court could simply decide its jurisdiction supersedes state law and hear the case under the federal process, including the application of qualified immunity. Only time will tell how the process will play out in practice. Regardless, the state process will make it more difficult for police to simply side-step civil suits by declaring sovereign immunity upfront.</p> <p><strong>Moving Forward </strong></p> <p>The Supreme Court shows no interest in rolling back its qualified immunity doctrine. In fact, the High Court recently rejected several cases that would have allowed it to revisit the issue. For instance, the SCOTUS let stand an <a href="http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715566.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eleventh Circuit decision</a> granting immunity to a police officer who shot a ten-year-old child in the back of the knee, while repeatedly attempting to shoot a pet dog that wasn’t threatening anyone.</p> <p>Congress could prohibit qualified immunity. <a href="https://amash.house.gov/media/press-releases/amash-pressley-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-end-qualified-immunity" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A bill</a> sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.) and  Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) during the last Congress would have done just that, but it was never taken up. Congress does not have a good track record on reining in government power.</p> <p>The best path forward is to bypass the federal system completely.</p> <p>Other states should follow their lead and create state processes to hold their police officers accountable. With the evolution of qualified immunity, the federal process is an abject failure. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote in the 1986 case <em>Malley v. Briggs</em>, qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-immunity-scotus-snapshot/six-takeaways-from-reuters-investigation-of-police-violence-and-qualified-immunity-idUSKBN22K1AM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Reuters</em> called it</a> “a highly effective shield in thousands of lawsuits seeking to hold cops accountable for using excessive force.”</p> <p>Attorney and activist Dave Roland called on Missouri to adopt a similar process in <a href="https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/dave-roland-no-more-excuses-hold-law-enforcement-officials-accountable/article_9d627981-1950-5858-abd9-d14cf587def6.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an op-ed published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>A consensus has developed — crossing all party and ideological lines — for the proposition that qualified immunity is an evil that should be undone. At the federal level either the Supreme Court or Congress could undo it, but thus far neither has seen fit to act. Justice in Missouri, however, does not need to wait on Washington — the Legislature can and should adopt a Missouri statute that allows citizens to sue government officials who have violated citizens’ constitutional rights.</p></blockquote> <p><strong>WHAT’S NEXT</strong></p> <p>SB2 now moves to the Assembly Appropriations Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving to the full Assembly.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/california-assembly-committees-pass-bill-to-close-qualified-immunity-loopholes-in-state-law/">California Assembly Committees Pass Bill to Close Qualified Immunity Loopholes in State Law</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Qualified Immunity State Bills California Incorporation Doctrine Police SB2 Mike Maharrey Does the Constitution Mean What It Says? https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/19/does-the-constitution-mean-what-it-says/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:63b1d734-7ade-81c7-8f42-807e96ac1bce Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:00:28 +0000 <p>The whole idea that rights can be turned off like a light switch and those in whose hands we have reposed the Constitution for safekeeping can get away with doing nothing when this happens is sadly consistent with the lack of fidelity to the Constitution so regularly displayed by those in government today.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/19/does-the-constitution-mean-what-it-says/">Does the Constitution Mean What It Says?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p><i>&#8220;No person &#8230; shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.&#8221;</i> — Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution</p> <p>Abdulsalam al-Hela is a 53-year-old Yemeni cleric who has been incarcerated by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba since 2004. He has not been charged with any crime. His case has a long and complex legal history, but it is instructive to all who believe that the Constitution means what it says.<span id="more-36480"></span></p> <p>Hela is represented by competent counsel who have filed numerous petitions in his behalf asking the courts to compel the government to comply with the Constitution and justify his confinement. The underlying constitutional principles here are due process and habeas corpus. The obligations of complying with both are imposed upon the federal government by the Constitution.</p> <p>Due process — which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment — means that every person confined or charged by the government is absolutely entitled to a notice of the charges against him, a fair hearing on those charges before a neutral judge and jury, and the right to appeal any adverse decision to other fair and neutral judges. Hela is also entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. It permits all confined persons to ask a judge to compel the government to justify the confinement.</p> <p>When Hela asked for due process and habeas corpus relief in federal district court in Washington, D.C. — the judicial venue for all Guantanamo Bay detainees — a district court judge denied his petition because the government has called Hela an enemy combatant and the president, the court ruled, has the lawful power to confine him for the duration of whatever hostilities he and the U.S. were engaged in.</p> <p>But the government acknowledges that Hela was not engaged in any hostilities. Moreover, the United States itself is no longer engaged in hostilities in the Middle East, though presidents Donald Trump and Joseph Biden have, from time to time, sent missiles into that scorched-earth part of the world just to remind the folks there who still claims to be king of the hill.</p> <p>Hela appealed the district court&#8217;s denial of habeas corpus and due process relief to the federal appellate court in Washington, D.C. A panel of three judges from that court chose not to address due process directly and instead denied Hela&#8217;s application for habeas. It did so not because the president — Trump, at the time — claims the power to confine foreign supporters of foreign groups violently at odds with the U.S., but for the historically novel reason that Hela has no property in the U.S. and is not confined here.</p> <p>This is not only an absurd rationale, as the Constitution imposes no property requirement as a precondition to the use of habeas corpus, but it also defies several Supreme Court opinions that hold that wherever the government goes lawfully and permanently, the Constitution goes with it. Stated differently, the court has ruled that the government must uphold basic human and constitutional rights for all those it confines for more than a passing period, including those at Guantanamo Bay.</p> <p>Why is this case important?</p> <p>Hela is obviously an unsympathetic figure. The government says that as a cleric, he used words — which, if used in the United States, would have been protected by the First Amendment — to encourage young people to join militias that either did or could have attacked American troops. But the courts have never upheld confinement without charge for the mere use of words. Nor have they condoned a 17-year confinement without so much as the filing of any charges.</p> <p>One can conclude that the government lacks evidence with which to charge and prosecute Hela. If that is so, it must let him go. This is basic constitutional law. But you would not know that from the position taken by the Biden Department of Justice.</p> <p>According to The New York Times, DOJ lawyers debated privately for weeks over whether Hela has due process rights. The deadline for the DOJ&#8217;s response to Hela&#8217;s appeal was last Friday. No surprise, the DOJ filed its brief to the court under seal but then leaked certain parts to the press.</p> <p>The leaks revealed that lawyers at the DOJ could not agree if the word &#8220;person&#8221; in the Fifth Amendment means &#8220;every person&#8221; or &#8220;every American person.&#8221; And so, in this monumental case, in which a federal appellate court negated long-recognized constitutional rights based on a novel and unconstitutional theory, the Biden Department of Justice remained mute. The Times also reported that Attorney General Merrick Garland recused himself from the case entirely because he once sat on the federal appeals court in Washington, though not on the panel that rejected Hela&#8217;s appeal.</p> <p>What&#8217;s going on here? We have another political Department of Justice. But this one is afraid to take an unpopular stance — even though such a stance is dictated by the Constitution and the plain meaning of its words.</p> <p>The DOJ&#8217;s failure to attack the made-up-out-of-thin-air property or physical presence requirement is not just a failure of nerve or a cover for the White House; it is a failure of the DOJ&#8217;s obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, no matter how obscure or unpopular the object of that defense may be.</p> <p>The whole idea that rights can be turned off like a light switch and those in whose hands we have reposed the Constitution for safekeeping can get away with doing nothing when this happens is sadly consistent with the lack of fidelity to the Constitution so regularly displayed by those in government today.</p> <p>I have asked this question before, without answer: Why do we repose the Constitution for safekeeping into the hands of those who subvert it?</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/19/does-the-constitution-mean-what-it-says/">Does the Constitution Mean What It Says?</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> 5th Amendment Abdulsalam al-Hela Due Process Guantanamo Bay Judge Andrew Napolitano No Representation: Antifederalist Brutus No. 4 https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/no-representation-antifederalist-brutus-no-4/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:364c3374-524c-41c3-a6ba-78fef1f35af6 Mon, 19 Jul 2021 17:34:23 +0000 <p>In his 4th essay, Antifederalist Brutus made the case that the federal House of Representatives could never be truly representative - because there are far too few members. He predicted this would lead to corruption and bribery. And rather than resulting in a free government, it would lead to one of consolidation, force, and coercion.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/no-representation-antifederalist-brutus-no-4/">No Representation: Antifederalist Brutus No. 4</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>In his 4th essay, Antifederalist Brutus made the case that the federal House of Representatives could never be truly representative &#8211; because there are far too few members. He predicted this would lead to corruption and bribery. And rather than resulting in a free government, it would lead to one of consolidation, force, and coercion.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: July 19, 2021 <span id="more-37753"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/N8OEbyeKnuo?start=41" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/brutus-iv/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Brutus No IV Nov 29, 1787</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.founderoftheday.com/founder-of-the-day/brutus-iv" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Founder of the Day</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.taraross.com/post/the-anti-federalist-papers-brutus-iv" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Tara Ross </a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-071621:c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/the-other-first-president-samuel-huntington-60f1bc51cffe83cf14f28f79" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-071621:c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1262813946440318976" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/f1eeb5ee-7429-40bf-8b31-f72282e4f3e8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/6Numl2z-9Q/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/d2hct5j0cN1l/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/43b0f28e-1cb5-49aa-86c4-4742875e64d4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/18f10fea-e14b-4a07-b48d-38b0adcf43de" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1416072131763449862" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6821848817630105600" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CRZVa5cr80r/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter/show/60f1bee3ba505f6c17ceaaba" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on MeWe</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/no-representation-antifederalist-brutus-no-4/">No Representation: Antifederalist Brutus No. 4</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Antifederalists Audio/Video Brutus Congress Path to Liberty Antifederalist Antifederalist Papers Brutus No IV Ratification Debates Representation Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 31:23 In his 4th essay, Antifederalist Brutus made the case that the federal House of Representatives could never be truly representative - because there are far too few members. He predicted this would lead to corruption and bribery. In his 4th essay, Antifederalist Brutus made the case that the federal House of Representatives could never be truly representative - because there are far too few members. He predicted this would lead to corruption and bribery. And rather than resulting in a free government, it would lead to one of consolidation, force, and coercion. Tennessee “Constitutional Carry” Law Now in Effect https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/tennessee-constitutional-carry-law-now-in-effect/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:269729b6-4b1f-de65-c68e-df266ffbbdfe Mon, 19 Jul 2021 09:19:39 +0000 <p>the enactment of SB765/HB786 does take a step forward and removes the permit requirement for most adults in Tennessee. In fact, it was unlikely a more sweeping measure would have passed at this time given the intense law enforcement lobby opposition.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/tennessee-constitutional-carry-law-now-in-effect/">Tennessee “Constitutional Carry” Law Now in Effect</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>NASHVILLE</strong>, Tenn. (July 19, 2021) – On July 1, a “constitutional carry” law went into effect in Tennessee making it legal to carry a concealed handgun without a permit and fostering an environment hostile to federal gun control in the state.</p> <p><span id="more-37598"></span><span id="more-37029"></span></p> <p>Sen. Jack Johnson (R-Brentwood), along with four fellow Republicans, introduced Senate Bill 765 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/TN/bill/SB0765/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB765</a>) on Feb. 9. Rep. William Lamberth (R-Portland) sponsored a companion bill (<a href="https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0786&amp;GA=112" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB786</a>) in the House. The new law allows adults 21 and older who can legally possess a firearm in the state to carry a handgun concealed or openly without a state-issued license. Members of the military 18 to 20 can also carry without a permit under the new law. The current licensing program will remain in effect for those wishing to carry concealed in states with reciprocity with Tennessee.</p> <p>Under the law, Tennesseans will still need to have an enhanced permit to carry a rifle.</p> <p>Despite intense opposition by law enforcement lobbyists, <a href="https://legiscan.com/TN/rollcall/SB0765/id/1032462" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB765 passed the Senate 23-9</a>. The <a href="https://legiscan.com/TN/rollcall/SB0765/id/1032462" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House approved the measure 64-29</a>, With Gov. Bill Lee&#8217;s signature on April 8, the law went into effect on July 1.</p> <p>The <a href="https://tennesseefirearms.com/2021/06/tfa-analzyes-tennessees-permitless-carry-law-and-recommends-getting-the-permit-instead/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tennessee Firearms Association (TFA) argues</a> that this isn&#8217;t a <strong>true</strong> constitutional carry because <a href="https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-39/chapter-17/part-13/39-17-1307" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a state law</a> making it a crime to carry a firearm &#8220;with the intent to go armed&#8221; remains in place. SB765/HB786 creates an exception to that law allowing adults over 21 to carry a concealed handgun without a permit, as long as they meet certain criteria. TFA finds this approach problematic.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The choice to make this an &#8216;exception&#8217; means that you have to satisfy each one of the conditions in order to avoid being charged with the crime. It likely means that a law enforcement officer is authorized to stop and detain any person who is observed carrying a handgun in order to determine if the person either has a valid permit or satisfies each of the conditions to the exception in the Governor’s law to the criminal charge.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Nevertheless, the enactment of SB765/HB786 does take a step forward and removes the permit requirement for most adults in Tennessee. In fact, it was unlikely a more sweeping measure would have passed at this time given the intense law enforcement lobby opposition.</p> <p>Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Mike Bell cosponsored the bill. He said it wasn&#8217;t everything he wanted, but it did move the “ball further down the field.” He said the legislature “… may come back to see how this works in a couple of years and come back and make some changes.”</p> <p>This has been the pattern with marijuana legalization. For instance, Virginia started with a very restrictive medical marijuana program and progressed to <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/virginia-legalizes-recreational-marijuana/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">full legalization this year</a>. When a state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand grows. That creates pressure to further relax state law. When the world doesn&#8217;t come to an end with this limited permitless carry law, there will certainly be pressure to expand it.</p> <p><strong>EFFECT ON FEDERAL GUN CONTROL</strong></p> <p>While permitless carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway.</p> <p>The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”</p> <p>Less restrictive state gun laws will likely have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce any future federal gun control, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts.</p> <p>State actions such as passing SB765 will lower barriers for those wanting the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/tennessee-constitutional-carry-law-now-in-effect/">Tennessee “Constitutional Carry” Law Now in Effect</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills Constitutional Carry firearms Permitless Carry SB765 second amendment Tennessee Mike Maharrey Defending the Constitution: Secrets behind those ‘obscure’ provisions https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/18/defending-the-constitution-secrets-behind-those-obscure-provisions/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:eb155825-30cf-f2d6-d142-686f7b7c67de Sun, 18 Jul 2021 20:34:12 +0000 <p>Here are questions and answers addressing five of the Constitution’s less famous provisions—including the Origination Clause.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/18/defending-the-constitution-secrets-behind-those-obscure-provisions/">Defending the Constitution: Secrets behind those ‘obscure’ provisions</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>In previous essays in the Defending the Constitution series, I’ve responded to “progressive” attacks on prominent terms in the document: <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-why-state-equality-in-the-senate-makes-sense_3761577.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">equal representation in the Senate</a>,<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-the-district-of-columbia-should-not-be-a-state_3788893.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> denying D.C. statehood</a>, and the <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-the-2nd-amendment-is-not-outdated_3801162.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Second Amendment</a>, among others.<span id="more-36478"></span></p> <p>But “progressives” also assail less prominent parts of the Constitution. For example, one liberal law professor <a href="https://i2i.org/a-response-to-professor-seidman/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reacted</a> to the Origination Clause—requiring tax measures to be introduced first in the House rather than the Senate—with the question, “Why should anyone care?”</p> <p>Below are questions and answers addressing five of the Constitution’s less famous provisions—including the Origination Clause.</p> <p><em>Question</em>: Why did the Constitution require approval of conventions in nine states to ratify the document? (Article VII). Why not all 13, as required by the Articles of Confederation? Or why not a mere majority of seven?</p> <p><em>Answer</em>: As I explained in an earlier <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-the-framers-did-not-violate-their-trust_3771518.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">essay</a>, the Articles of Confederation did not create a real government. It was a treaty organization akin to the NATO compact. Under international law the signatories (the states) were free to make any new arrangements they thought best.</p> <p>The Confederation’s rule that amendments be approved unanimously had proved unworkable. However, the nine-state rule employed by the Confederation for other purposes was more acceptable.</p> <p>Moreover, ratification by popularly elected conventions in any nine states—even the nine least populated—would ensure that the document was approved by a majority of the electorate. (Compare the congressional allocation in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.) So upon ratification by nine states, the Constitution would have been endorsed by both (1) two-thirds of the states and (2) a majority of “We the People.”</p> <p>Each state had the option of refusing to ratify and staying out of the Union. No state took that option.</p> <p><em>Question</em>: Why does the Constitution require the president to be a natural born citizen? (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5). Why not a naturalized citizen?</p> <p><em>Answer</em>: The framers understood that for republican government to work, there had to be a close identity of interest, knowledge, and feeling between the governors and the governed. We might call this “empathy,” but the founding-era term was <em>sympathy </em>(<a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/reminder.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pdf</a>).</p> <p>Persons born and raised in foreign countries lack many of the formulative experiences most Americans share. Even the most patriotic naturalized citizens may have unconscious foreign loyalties or contacts. Or they may be subject to pressure imposed on family members in their place of birth. All these factors potentially create conflicts of interest.</p> <p>Indeed, the Constitution’s framers knew from English history of officials born or raised outside the country who betrayed their trust to foreign powers. In Britain, therefore, even members of Parliament had to be natural born.</p> <p>Yet the framers recognized that America was a nation of immigrants and needed the skills of naturalized citizens. In addition, the framers wished to avoid any appearance of creating a caste system. So because the president has principal responsibility for foreign affairs, they limited the “natural born” requirement to the president and to the vice president who might succeed him.</p> <p>In recent years, both Barack Obama and Kamala Harris have come under fire for allegedly failing to qualify as natural born citizens. Under the rules in effect when the Constitution was adopted, both do qualify as <a href="https://i2i.org/seems-blog-right-natural-born-citizenship-along/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">natural born</a>. But I sometimes wonder how their views might differ if they had not spent so much of their childhood outside America.</p> <p><em>Question</em>: The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV provides, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” What does that mean?</p> <p><em>Answer</em>:  The Privileges and Immunities Clause has been widely misunderstood, even among legal scholars. However, in 2009 I published an exhaustive research article (<a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/PI-article-ocr.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pdf</a>) that I think pretty well establishes its meaning.</p> <p>“Privileges and immunities” was a common expression in 18th century legal documents, with a distinct legal meaning. A <em>privilege </em>was a benefit or advantage government bestowed on one or more people. (The modern word is “entitlement.”) An <em>immunity</em> was the flip side of a privilege. Thus, the privilege of a tax exemption was an immunity from taxation. Neither term included <em>natural rights</em>, such as freedom of religion or self-defense.</p> <p>The Privileges and Immunities Clause provides that if a state gives all its citizens a particular privilege, then the state must give the same privilege to visiting out-of-staters. Thus, if a state affords trial by jury to all adult citizens, then the state must offer trial by jury to visitors as well. Similarly, if a state prescribes procedures by which adult citizens may transfer land, then it must allow visitors access to those same procedures. But no state grants all adult citizens the privilege of voting, so no state need grant visitors the privilege of voting.</p> <p>Article IV contains several provisions designed to tie the states more closely to one another. The Privileges and Immunities Clause is one of these: It protects interstate travelers from certain kinds of discrimination.</p> <p><em>Question</em>: Article IV also has a provision that reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Why is this clause in the Constitution? What is the “Republican Form?”</p> <p><em>Answer</em>: This is called the Guarantee Clause. In the founding era, a <em>republic</em> was a sovereign political unit that (1) had no monarch, (2) followed the rule of law, and (3) rested directly or indirectly on the majority of citizens (<a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/A-Republic-Not-a-Democracy-Initiative-Referendum-and-the-Constitutions-Guarantee-Clause-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pdf</a>). The framers inserted the Guarantee Clause primarily to prevent any state from being a monarchy. They knew from history that when a monarchy was part of a federation, the monarch often tried to undermine other states in the federation.</p> <p>The Guarantee Clause imposes an obligation directly on the U.S. government and implicitly grants the government the power to carry it out.</p> <p>One last point on the Guarantee Clause: You may have heard that “We have a republic, not a democracy.” That expression is incorrect. American government is both a republic and a constitutional democracy.</p> <p>No 18th century sources distinguished sharply between republics and democracies. On the contrary, in most contexts the terms were interchangeable. For example, delegates to the Virginia convention that ratified the Constitution repeatedly referred to American governments as both “democracies” and “republics.” In the language of the time, the only democracies that were not republics were “pure democracies”—complete mob rule without either magistrates or the rule of law.</p> <p>The alleged distinction between republics and democracies arose from a distortion of James Madison’s Federalist No. 10 by partisans during a political dispute in the 1840s. They overlooked Federalist No. 63, where Madison treats the two terms as interchangeable.</p> <p><em>Question</em>: Why does the Constitution state that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1)?</p> <p><em>Answer</em>: This is the Origination Clause. In the British system, the leading protection for popular government was that all tax and spending bills had to be introduced in the House of Commons. The House of Lords could not even amend them; the Lords were limited to “yes” or “no.”</p> <p>The U.S. Senate is more representative of the people than the House of Lords, but less representative than the U.S. House of Representatives. The Origination Clause therefore is a compromise with British practice: (1) It applies only to tax bills and not to spending bills, and (2) the Senate, unlike the Lords, may propose amendments.</p> <p>The compromise was brokered at the Constitutional Convention by Delaware’s John Dickinson and Virginia’s Edmund Randolph—two essential Founders whose contributions are under-appreciated today. Dickinson and Randolph accurately judged that without the Origination Clause the people might reject the Constitution as “too aristocratic.”</p> <p>Incidentally, one of the reasons the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is unconstitutional is that part of it was enacted in violation of the Origination Clause (<a href="https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/OC-Final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pdf</a>). The Supreme Court has never examined this issue.</p> <p><strong>This essay was <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-secrets-behind-those-obscure-provisions_3888970.html">first published</a> in the July 6, 2021 <em>Epoch Times.</em></strong></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/18/defending-the-constitution-secrets-behind-those-obscure-provisions/">Defending the Constitution: Secrets behind those ‘obscure’ provisions</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Constitution Founding Principles Guarantee Clause Natural Born Citizens Origination Clause Privileges and Immunities Clause Republican Form Rob Natelson The US Spending Problem Is Not Transitory https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-us-spending-problem-is-not-transitory/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f14cd89b-eab3-8f60-3c1c-5459e6598d76 Sun, 18 Jul 2021 19:19:42 +0000 <p>There is an ongoing debate about whether high inflation is "transitory" or rising prices are going to be more long-term and persistent. One thing for sure, the US government spending problem isn't transitory.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-us-spending-problem-is-not-transitory/">The US Spending Problem Is Not Transitory</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>There is an ongoing debate about whether high inflation is &#8220;transitory&#8221; or rising prices are going to be more long-term and persistent. One thing for sure, the US government spending problem isn&#8217;t transitory.</p> <p>And that has pretty significant ramifications if inflation is running out of control.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">This should be pretty obvious by now. The federal government&#39;s spending problem is definitely not temporary. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/economy?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#economy</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/inflation?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#inflation</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/nationaldebt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#nationaldebt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/truth?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#truth</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/politics?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#politics</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/liberty?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#liberty</a> <a href="https://t.co/BzwNxod9hx">pic.twitter.com/BzwNxod9hx</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1416432167907852288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 17, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/17/the-federal-reserve-the-engine-that-powers-the-most-powerful-government-in-history/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Federal Reserve: The Engine that Powers the Most Powerful Government in History</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/10/partisan-hackery-blinds-people-to-the-real-problem/">Partisan Hackery Blinds People to the Real Problem</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/03/biden-borrow-and-spend-plan-builds-on-trump-legacy-and-makes-things-even-worse/">Biden Borrow and Spend Plan Builds on Trump Legacy and Makes Things Even Worse</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-us-spending-problem-is-not-transitory/">The US Spending Problem Is Not Transitory</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Debt Maharrey Minute budget deficit Federal Reserve government spending Inflation National Debt Mike Maharrey Central Banking vs. the Constitution https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/central-banking-vs-the-constitution/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:53f7ffc2-67c0-76e3-c6d8-fec473bbb86f Sat, 17 Jul 2021 14:00:11 +0000 <p>During the interview, Mike Leavitt and I talk about central banking and how it fuels big government, the debate surrounding America's first national bank, and why Hamilton's victory in the argument over the bank undermined the Constitutional system.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/central-banking-vs-the-constitution/">Central Banking vs. the Constitution</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>The battle over the First Bank of the United States wasn&#8217;t only about banking. It was more fundamentally a constitutional debate. In this interview on the &#8220;<a href="https://andifloveremains.podbean.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">And If Love Remains</a>&#8221; podcast, I talk about the battle over Alexander Hamilton&#8217;s bank and the ramifications that continue to impact us today.<span id="more-37691"></span></p> <p>During the interview, Mike Leavitt and I talk about central banking and how it fuels big government, the debate surrounding America&#8217;s first national bank, and why Hamilton&#8217;s victory in the argument over the bank undermined the Constitutional system. Along the way, we also discuss America&#8217;s intended constitutional structure and the work of the Tenth Amendment Center.</p> <p><iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.podbean.com/player-v2/?i=gdcm7-1082342-pb&amp;from=embed&amp;share=1&amp;download=1&amp;skin=f6f6f6&amp;btn-skin=8bbb4e&amp;size=315" width="100%" height="315" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/central-banking-vs-the-constitution/">Central Banking vs. the Constitution</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Federal Reserve Interviews Alexander Hamilton Central Banking Constitution Mike Maharrey Vetoed: Wisconsin Bill to End Support for Future Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/vetoed-wisconsin-bill-to-end-support-for-future-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:146b1558-af37-defc-86a2-ee48dd217fad Fri, 16 Jul 2021 20:36:31 +0000 <p>Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a bill that would have prohibited local enforcement of some future federal gun control. Passage into law would have taken a first step toward stopping any new federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/vetoed-wisconsin-bill-to-end-support-for-future-federal-gun-control/">Vetoed: Wisconsin Bill to End Support for Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>MADISON</strong>, Wisc. (July 16, 2021) – Last week, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a bill that would have prohibited local enforcement of some future federal gun control. Passage into law would have taken a first step toward stopping any new federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.<span id="more-37728"></span></p> <p>A large coalition of Republicans introduced House Bill 293 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/WI/bill/AB293/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AB293</a>) on May 3. The legislation would prohibit any person from enforcing a federal act, law, statute, rule, regulation, treaty, or order that takes effect on or after January 1, 2021, if it bans or restricts semi-automatic firearms, assault weapons, or magazines; requires registration of firearms, magazines, or other firearm accessories; regulates the capacity of magazines; regulates the quantity of ammunition or bullets an individual may possess; prohibits types of ammunition or bullets; or requires the confiscation of a firearm if the federal act isn’t identical to existing state law.</p> <p>The proposed law would also bar any state agency or other body in state government and any local governmental unit from expending money or using other resources to confiscate a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is lawfully possessed under the laws of Wisconsin.</p> <p>Anyone in violation of the law would be subject to Class A misdemeanor charges.</p> <p>Additionally, AB293 includes provisions to exempt a firearm, accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured within the state and that does not leave the state from federal regulations under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. It also includes potential misdemeanor charges for federal agents, although these two sections of the bill are unlikely to have an immediate impact without the approval of a federal court.</p> <p><strong>VETO</strong></p> <p>The Democrat governor was expected to veto the bill. In his <a href="https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2021/related/veto_messages/ab293.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">veto message</a>, Evers erroneously claimed &#8220;this bill is not permitted by the United States Constitution,&#8221; citing the supremacy clause.</p> <p>&#8220;This bill purports to nullify the enforcement of federal law,&#8221; he wrote.</p> <p>While the provisions applying to federal agents are arguably problematic, Evers completely ignores the fact that the Supreme Court has held consistently that states don&#8217;t have to enforce federal laws. The state of Wisconsin can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control (or any other federal act.) 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>The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p>When Evers says the bill is unconstitutional, he&#8217;s either ignorant or lying.</p> <p>Since states have the authority to direct their personnel and resources as they see fit, they can legally punish state officers for participating in enforcement actions prohibited by state law..</p> <p>But admittedly, prosecuting federal agents would be problematic.</p> <p>Under federal statutes, any case involving a federal agent acting within the scope of his or her official duties <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqF4zyY2Kd8&amp;list=PLZyloySS5-JSG8epr6kvgfSibXxwWVUZa&amp;index=16">gets removed to federal court</a>. In other words, the current structure of the legal system makes it virtually impossible to prosecute a federal agent in state court. Lawyers for the charged federal agent would immediately make a motion to remove the case to a federal district court under <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj89u-EiIrYAhWKTSYKHfGGBSQQFggpMAA&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2Ftext%2F28%2F1442&amp;usg=AOvVaw2koNNAHVDjbbncXt0drNQ0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)</a>. Unless the state judge refused to comply, the case would then be out of state hands.</p> <p>Nevertheless, the threat of arrest would create problems for federal agents trying to enforce unconstitutional gun laws in Wisconsin and would certainly gum up the works even if they were never prosecuted. The question is whether or not local law enforcement will be willing to enforce the law on federal officials.</p> <p><strong>REPUBLICAN STRATEGY</strong></p> <p>Given that Evers was almost certain to veto any effort to limit enforcement of federal gun control and considering the fact that the Republicans knew they couldn&#8217;t pass such a bill with a veto-proof majority, AB293 was clearly introduced and passed to make a statement. But why did Republicans choose to only ban enforcement of future federal gun control? Why not go all the way and refuse to enforce <em>all</em> federal gun control? Why the half-measure? Do Wisconsin Republicans believe that gun control that isn&#8217;t implemented by Joe Biden is somehow constitutional? Because it&#8217;s not.</p> <p>A bill limited to taking on future federal gun control only makes sense as a strategic first step. In some states, a more limited measure may be the best politically viable option. But if you&#8217;re just making a statement, and you know you&#8217;re just making a statement, why not go all the way and make a real statement? This bill makes little sense strategically. But Wisconsin Republicans certainly did make a statement &#8211; that they don&#8217;t care about all of the unconstitutional federal gun control enforced every single day in the Badger State.</p> <p><b>EFFECTIVE</b></p> <p>Despite Gov. Evers&#8217;s constitutional ignorance and spineless Republicans, state and local refusal to cooperate with federal actions provides a powerful tool to resist unconstitutional federal overreach.</p> <p>The provisions relating to firearms manufactured within the state would likely have little practical effect, but the ban on state and local enforcement of future federal acts that don’t conform to state law would make them nearly impossible to enforce in Wisconsin.</p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said. “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> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/vetoed-wisconsin-bill-to-end-support-for-future-federal-gun-control/">Vetoed: Wisconsin Bill to End Support for Future Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills AB293 Federal Gun Control second amendment Wisconsin Mike Maharrey Signed as Law: Montana Sets Stage to Expand Healthcare Freedom https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/signed-as-law-montana-sets-stage-to-expand-healthcare-freedom/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:22eee5ff-7b31-b334-6594-bd09d57aa4eb Fri, 16 Jul 2021 20:29:07 +0000 <p>The new law specifies that direct patient care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/signed-as-law-montana-sets-stage-to-expand-healthcare-freedom/">Signed as Law: Montana Sets Stage to Expand Healthcare Freedom</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>HELENA</strong>, Mont. (July 16, 2021) &#8211; Earlier this year, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a bill into law that will help facilitate healthcare freedom outside of government insurance regulatory schemes.<span id="more-37727"></span></p> <p>Sen. Cary Smith (R-Billings) sponsored Senate Bill 101 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/MT/bill/SB101/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB101</a>). The new law specifies that direct patient care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code.</p> <p>Under the law, any &#8220;health care provider&#8221; can enter into direct patient care agreements. A health care provider is broadly defined as a person &#8220;licensed, certified, or otherwise authorized by the laws of this state to provide health care in the ordinary course of business or practice of a profession. This includes not only physicians, but also dentists, dermatologists, psychiatrists and other medical professionals.</p> <p>The law also provides legal protection for both patients and doctors entering into direct patient care agreements.</p> <p>The House passed SB101 by a 65-34 vote, and the Senate <a href="https://legiscan.com/MT/rollcall/SB101/id/1033287" target="_blank" rel="noopener">gave final approval 33-16</a>. With Gianforte&#8217;s signature, the bill will go into effect on Oct. 1.</p> <p><a href="https://frontierinstitute.org/" rel="nofollow">The Frontier Institute</a> supported SB101. The organization&#8217;s CEO, Kendall Cotton, <a href="https://fee.org/articles/how-montana-is-revolutionizing-healthcare-with-markets/?utm_source=Social&amp;utm_medium=Twitter&amp;utm_campaign=2021_FEEDotOrg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">praised the bill&#8217;s passage</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>“DPC has proven to be a transparent, low-cost, quality-care option for Montanans struggling from surging medical expenses. This reform makes our state a national leader in affordable healthcare options that bypass paperwork and bureaucracy and put doctors and patients in charge.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>According to <em>Michigan Capitol Confidential</em>, by removing a third-party payer from the equation, medical retainer agreements help both physicians and patients minimize costs. Jack Spencer <a href="http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/20924" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">writes</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>“Under medical retainer agreements, patients make monthly payments to a physician who in return agrees to provide a menu of routine services at no extra charge. Because no insurance company stands between patient and doctor, the hassles and expense of bureaucratic red tape are eliminated, which have resulted in dramatic cost reductions. Routine primary care services (and the bureaucracy required to reimburse them) are estimated to consume 40 cents out of every dollar spent on insurance policies, so lower premiums for a given amount of coverage are another potential benefit.”</p></blockquote> <p>This represents the kind of cost control Obamacare promised but failed to deliver. Tom Woods <a href="http://tomwoods.com/blog/capitalism-vs-american-health-care/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">interviewed a Kansas doctor</a> who utilizes the direct primary care model. Dr. Josh Umbehr’s practice demonstrates the cost savings possible when doctors are unfettered from the bureaucratic health insurance system.</p> <p>Under Obamacare, regulations define such programs as a primary care service and not a health insurance plan, and current IRS policy treats these monthly fee arrangements just like another health plan.</p> <p><strong>A FIRST STEP</strong></p> <p>Even while controlling both houses of Congress, the Republicans never did repeal Obamacare. And if they had passed one of their “repeal and replace” bills, the changes to the ACA proposed by the GOP would have arguably made things worse. The Republican Congress did zero out the penalty for not buying health insurance in their tax reform bill, all other Obamacare rules and regulations remain in place. And in all likelihood, Democrat-controlled Congress will likely reinstitute the penalty and could expand government intervention into the healthcare marketplace.</p> <p>Regardless, <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/01/08/states-should-help-bring-down-obamacare/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state actions can help completely bring down the Affordable Care Act</a>, or any national healthcare plan Congress comes up with in the future.</p> <p>Oftentimes, supporters of Obamacare criticize opponents for not having any alternative. Direct primary care offers one.</p> <p>These direct patient/doctor agreements allow a system uncontrolled by government regulations to develop. It makes doctors responsive to patients, not insurance company bureaucrats or government rule-makers. Allowing patients to contract directly with doctors via medical retainer agreements opens the market. Under such agreements, market forces will set prices for services based on demand instead of relying on central planners with a political agenda. The end result will be better care delivered at a lower cost.</p> <p>By incentivizing creative healthcare solutions, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/10/markets-and-individual-action-helping-to-undermine-obamacare/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the market will naturally provide better options, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma</a>, This facility operates completely outside of the insurance system, providing a low-cost alternative for many surgical procedures.</p> <p>A more open healthcare marketplace within a state will help spur de facto nullification of the federal program by providing an affordable alternative. As patients flock to these arrangements and others spurred by ingenuity and market forces, the old system will begin to crumble.</p> <p>The enactment of SB101 will take the first step toward healthcare freedom in Montana and create a stepping stone to further action to nullify the onerous Affordable Care act. With this new law in place, the people of Montana can take further steps to fully extricate themselves from Obamacare for good.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/signed-as-law-montana-sets-stage-to-expand-healthcare-freedom/">Signed as Law: Montana Sets Stage to Expand Healthcare Freedom</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Health Care State Bills Direct Primary Care Healthcare Montana Obamacare SB101 Mike Maharrey At Some Point You’ve Gotta Realize… https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/at-some-point-youve-gotta-realize/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:abc9899d-6b6b-8695-f67d-d3d3a0336fa9 Fri, 16 Jul 2021 20:25:59 +0000 <p>It seems like every election these days ranks as the "most important" ever. But after each election, what really changes?</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/at-some-point-youve-gotta-realize/">At Some Point You’ve Gotta Realize…</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>It seems like every election these days ranks as the &#8220;most important&#8221; ever. But after each election, what really changes?</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">Here we go again. Another round of &quot;this is THE MOST important election EVER!&quot; It&#39;s sad that people keep falling for this nonsense. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a> <a href="https://t.co/TMWuFuZTKO">pic.twitter.com/TMWuFuZTKO</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1415734909797388291?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/21/good-enough-politicians-arent-good-enough/">“Good Enough” Politicians Aren’t Good Enough</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/11/02/election-results-a-boost-to-big-government/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Election Results: A Boost to Big Government</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/at-some-point-youve-gotta-realize/">At Some Point You’ve Gotta Realize…</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Elections Maharrey Minute Government Strategy Mike Maharrey Restoring the Fourth Amendment’s Oath or Affirmation Clause https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/16/restoring-the-fourth-amendments-oath-or-affirmation-clause/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:c47c7a6d-7507-9b88-f209-73ec2ccca382 Fri, 16 Jul 2021 17:38:57 +0000 <p>The intent of the oath requirement was to ensure that government agents would offer more than just rumors, hearsay, or their own personal prejudices to justify entering private property without the consent of the owner.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/16/restoring-the-fourth-amendments-oath-or-affirmation-clause/">Restoring the Fourth Amendment’s Oath or Affirmation Clause</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>The Fourth Amendment’s requirements for obtaining a warrant have been subverted in practice and in legal theory.<span id="more-36471"></span></p> <p>That’s the argument made in  “<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3860490" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Broken Fourth Amendment Oath</a>” paper written by Law Professor Laurent Sacharoff. The paper focuses on the need for credible evidence before the government can obtain search warrants.</p> <p>The Fourth Amendment states the following (bold emphasis added):</p> <blockquote><p>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, <strong>but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation</strong>, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</p></blockquote> <p>“The Fourth Amendment ‘oath’ is a topic strangely ignored—even simply to address the strange idea that officers can swear the ‘oath’ simply repeating another’s account,” Sacharoff writes. “We should restore the Fourth Amendment oath requirement that the real accuser swears the oath based upon personal knowledge.”</p> <p>The intent of the oath requirement was to ensure that government agents would offer more than just rumors, hearsay, or their own personal prejudices to justify entering private property without the consent of the owner. It was meant to provide accountability and guardrails against misuse of warrants Yet, Sacharoff notes that judges today spend little time reviewing warrant requests, citing a study that concluded they spend an average of two minutes looking at each warrant application.</p> <p>Sacharoff documents the long tradition within the Anglo legal system of requiring oaths to affirm testimony that would be used for an arrest, warrant, or for conviction.</p> <blockquote><p>“This goal, to protect the liberty of the individual against unfounded searches or arrests, works best if it is the real accuser with personal knowledge who swears the oath and subjects himself to examination by the magistrate. To examine an officer merely repeating another’s account does little to assure the allegations themselves are true, when the person who originally made it.  Perjury and trespass are thus a foundational part of the Fourth Amendment, and their details support a real accuser requirement. Perjury required not only an oath, but one in which the person makes a ‘positive,’ ‘direct” or ‘absolute’ assertion of truth, and not mere belief.”</p></blockquote> <p>Prior to the War of Independence, the British government set up a new legal process to obtain search and warrants for seditious activities in England, as well as revenue searches in colonial America.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Both efforts led to legal battles that became the foundation for the Fourth Amendment,” Sacharoff wrote. “These writs did not require an oath at all. Courts in Massachusetts, for example, simply granted the writ to a customs officer as standing authority, like a commission, to use for any case he should decide, in his discretion, to use. From the 1760s until the revolution, the courts in many colonies rejected the writs because they were general and without oath, though sometimes they would grant special writs based on oath. In Massachusetts and the few other states where the writs remained lawful, officers almost never sought or executed such writs because the people would interfere and prevent any seizure or, after a seizure, rescue the ship or other property seized.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Much has changed since the Bill of Rights was ratified. Thanks to cases like <em>Brinegar v. United States</em> and <em>Draper v. United States</em>, the modern practice of obtaining warrants allows the use of unnamed or confidential informants. Not only does it violate the spirit of the amendment itself, but practically speaking, it opens the risk of warrants beaded on noncredible information.</p> <p>Describing the deadly raid on Breonna Taylor’s home in 2019, Sacharoff writes:</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Officers were investigating drug dealing by Jamarcus Glover out of his home miles away from where Breonna Taylor lived. But officers suspected that they would find drugs, proceeds, or records in Taylor’s home as well. The investigating police detective suspected this in part because Taylor was supposedly &#8216;receiving packages&#8217; for Glover at her home. How did the detective know this?—third hand, from an unnamed source In his affidavit to obtain the warrant, the detective swore that an unnamed postal inspector had told him Taylor was receiving Glover’s packages. Note the supposed postal inspector did not come into court to tell the judge directly. The judge relied upon this third-hand account, found probable cause, and issued the warrant to search Taylor’s home. Based upon this warrant, the police raided Breonna Taylor’s home, near midnight, battering in. Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, terrified, gave one warning shot against the unknown and, to him, unannounced intruders. They respond with overwhelming gunfire, killing Taylor. I argue that the Fourth Amendment as originally understood would likely have prevented this raid.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Sacharoff also notes that the use of unnamed informants to get search warrants is exercised routinely in cities like Chicago and, like with Breonna Taylor, to disastrous results. One such case involved a SWAT team conducting a no-knock raid on the wrong home due to a “bad tip” by an informant.</p> <p>“If the informer had been required to testify, under oath, before a judge, that informant either would not have testified at all, or have made sure to be accurate before knowingly sending a SWAT team into someone’s home,” Sacharoff writes.</p> <p>He concludes:</p> <blockquote><p>“Under current Supreme Court doctrine, the ‘oath or affirmation&#8217; requirement in the Fourth Amendment allows officers to swear the oath merely to repeat, third-hand, the allegations of the real accuser. This hyper-literal expedient contradicts the original understanding of the oath requirement. We should therefore return to the original requirement that the real accuser, with personal knowledge, swear the oath before a judge issues a warrant. This requirement will help reduce the widespread abuse of search warrants to authorize violent, night-time home intrusions based on faulty confidential informants. the same reasons that drove the founding era to insist that the real accuser swear the oath remain as strong today: the need for truth and accountability to justify such drastic intrusions into liberty and the security of the home in particular.”</p></blockquote> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/16/restoring-the-fourth-amendments-oath-or-affirmation-clause/">Restoring the Fourth Amendment’s Oath or Affirmation Clause</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> 4th Amendment fourth-amendment oath of office search warrants supreme-court TJ Martinell The Other “First” President: Samuel Huntington https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-other-first-president-samuel-huntington/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:ae478917-e7c2-70a7-c86f-ccb2236a094b Fri, 16 Jul 2021 17:12:21 +0000 <p>Born July 16, 1731, Samuel Huntington was a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. He was also President of the 2nd Continental Congress when the Articles went into effect in March 1781. Since this was the first constitution for the United States, did this make Huntington the real First President? Some historians think so, but there’s a strong case against it too.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-other-first-president-samuel-huntington/">The Other “First” President: Samuel Huntington</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Born July 16, 1731, Samuel Huntington was a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. He was also President of the 2nd Continental Congress when the Articles went into effect in March 1781. Since this was the first constitution for the United States, did this make Huntington the real First President? Some historians think so, but there’s a strong case against it too.</p> <p>Path to Liberty. Fast Friday Edition: July 16, 2021 <span id="more-37734"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/GlyCNAvynrE" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Huntington_(Connecticut_politician)" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Samuel Huntington overview</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.dsdi1776.com/samuel-huntington/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">DSDI: Samuel Huntington</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.connecticutsar.org/governor-samuel-huntington/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">SAR: Samuel Huntington</a></p> <p><a href="https://museumofcthistory.org/2015/08/samuel-huntington/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Museum of CT History</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/history/samhuntington.htm" rel="noopener" target="_blank">CT Judicial Branch History</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/samuel-huntington-elected-presidentof-united-states/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Samuel Huntington Elected President…of the United States?</a></p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Continental_Congress" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Wiki: President of the Continental Congress</a></p> <p><a href="https://constitutingamerica.org/90day-dcin-samuel-huntington-farmer-connecticut-supreme-court-justice-governor-signer-declaration-of-independence-guest-essayist-tom-hand/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Samuel Huntington: Farmer, Connecticut Supreme Court Justice, Governor, and Signer of the Declaration of Independence</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-071421:5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/free-speech-under-attack-the-sedition-60ef24442fda05cd0eebf29f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-071421:5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1262101867809705984" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/4082db3e-3c03-4ece-ba28-aa4a1dfb7d0b" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/v/38U3okRLk/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/H5xduS1FcSbG/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/78524fe9-7f5f-4beb-b5ff-a38ca9b34a5e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/a3b0360d-37da-4d3e-9aef-5f67cd85e7e7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1415347104524824579" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CRURTtQrlq-/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on IGTV</a></p> <p><a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter/show/60ef27a91334321d2d56c717" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on MeWe</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/the-other-first-president-samuel-huntington/">The Other “First” President: Samuel Huntington</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Path to Liberty Samuel Huntington articles of confederation continental congress History Today in History Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 18:41 Born July 16, 1731, Samuel Huntington was a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. He was also President of the 2nd Continental Congress when the Articles went into effect in March 1781. Born July 16, 1731, Samuel Huntington was a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. He was also President of the 2nd Continental Congress when the Articles went into effect in March 1781. Since this was the first constitution for the United States, did this make Huntington the real First President? Some historians think so, but there’s a strong case against it too. Police Are Lying About “No-Knock” Warrants https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/police-are-lying-about-no-knock-warrants/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:4c94e77d-6f79-42ba-f97a-35a1901d9a14 Fri, 16 Jul 2021 12:17:09 +0000 <p>Police claim they need "no-knock" warrants to pursue murderers and violent criminals. But, this rarely seems to be the case.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/police-are-lying-about-no-knock-warrants/">Police Are Lying About “No-Knock” Warrants</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Police claim they need &#8220;no-knock&#8221; warrants to pursue murderers and violent criminals. But, this rarely seems to be the case. In reality, no-knock warrants are a tool that law enforcement used to beef up the war on drugs in the 1980s, and cops have continued to use them mainly for that purpose ever since.<span id="more-37697"></span></p> <p>No-knock warrants allow police to enter a building without knocking or announcing themselves. This creates an element of surprise. Law enforcement apologists claim boosts officer safety and keeps criminals from destroying evidence. But oftentimes, the reaction of surprised occupants, often awakened from a dead sleep, leads to a violent police response.</p> <p>That&#8217;s what happened to Breonna Taylor.</p> <p>The 26-year-old woman was in bed with her boyfriend Kenneth Walker in the early-morning hours of March 13 when Louisville police broke into her home executing a no-knock warrant issued earlier that day. Walker claims he heard banging on the door but never hear anybody say “police.” When the officers broke down the door, Walker fired a shot, hitting an officer in the leg. Police returned fire, killing Taylor. She suffered at least eight gunshot wounds.</p> <p>Taylors death sparked a movement to do away with no-knock warrants. Police insist they need them to catch dangerous criminals. But more often than not, they are employed in run-of-the-mill drug raids, not in pursuit of murders and rapists as police claim.</p> <p>Let&#8217;s take for example the case of Lexington, Kentucky. Currently, the City Council is embroiled in a <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/lexington-police-organization-sues-to-stop-city-ban-on-no-knock-warrants/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legal battle</a> with a police union after passing a ban on &#8220;no-knock&#8221; warrants earlier this year. Fraternal Order of Police attorney Scott Crosbie said police believe the no-knock warrants will keep them safe and that they should remain on the table as a bargaining tool. According to the FOP, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/kyfoplodge4/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lexington is experiencing a 67 percent increase in homicides</a>, combined with staffing shortages. But what does this have to do with &#8220;no-knock&#8221; warrants?</p> <p>The implication seems to be that without the &#8220;no-knock&#8221; warrants, police will be put in danger as they try to apprehend violent and dangerous criminals such as murderers and rapists. But the <em>Lexington Herald-Leader</em> obtained copies of past no-knock warrants in 2020.  <em>All</em> of the cases were drug-related &#8211; no murderers were apprehended.</p> <p>Community leaders opposed to the practice argue that &#8220;no-knock&#8221; warrants increase the danger to both police and the community. We have seen play out over and over again in cases like Breonna Taylor, <a href="https://reason.com/2016/02/28/drug-warriors-will-pay-36-million-for-ma/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bounkham Phonesavanh</a>, along with <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/houston-police-embroiled-scandal-lies-found-knock-warrant/story?id=60991293" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dennis Tuttle and his wife Rhogena Nicholas</a>. In this case, four officers were also shot, and the warrant was obtained under questionable circumstances.</p> <p>In every single one of these cases, the warrants were drug-related.</p> <p>Radley Balko, Investigative journalist and author of the book &#8220;Rise of the Warrior Cop,&#8221; told NPR he doesn&#8217;t think police are being honest when they say they need no-knock warrants to catch murderers.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The argument is that they&#8217;re safer for police because these are dangerous people, and they need to be taken by surprise. I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s true. I mean, my experience in reporting on this issue for about 15 years is that, you know, when you break somebody&#8217;s door down in the middle of the night, you elicit a very primal reaction in them, kind of a fight-or-flight response.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>Not only does this raise the question as to whether or not drug possession should be a death sentence, but there is an even broader issue here. Should addressing the drug problem endanger the lives of law enforcement and the general public in the way that it clearly does. And, why doesn&#8217;t law enforcement itself have a bigger issue with this?</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;I would say on average, we see about 8 to 10 cases per year where a completely innocent person is killed among these raids. We probably see another 20 or 30 where someone who, you know, may have had some drugs in the house is killed,&#8221; Balko said.</p></blockquote> <p>Similar legislation to the Lexington ban has been popping up in states across the nation even prior to this year. It&#8217;s important to note that most of these bills and ordinances are not just removing or limiting the use of &#8220;no-knock&#8221; warrants. They are also including other things that benefit the community, including tighter rules regarding the specific execution of knock and announce warrants. These elements can work toward creating a better relationship between local law enforcement and community members who are currently at odds. It won&#8217;t come from law enforcement being disingenuous regarding any kind of warrant.</p> <blockquote><p>“I believe there’s nothing impossible for us to accomplish when we work together, when we listen to one another, and when we are willing to work tougher to make appropriate changes,” said Rev. David Peoples, Jabez Missionary Baptist Church. “This no-knock warrant ban is a win for this community.”</p></blockquote> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/police-are-lying-about-no-knock-warrants/">Police Are Lying About “No-Knock” Warrants</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Drug War Police no-knock warrant Amanda Bowers Pennsylvania Bill Would End State Enforcement of a Wide Range of Federal Gun Control https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/pennsylvania-bill-would-end-state-enforcement-of-a-wide-range-of-federal-gun-control/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:028fa72f-61a6-74a1-d3cc-aae5a71f9d89 Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:56:11 +0000 <p>Under the proposed law, officers and employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would be prohibited from enforcing or attempting to enforce any infringements on the right to keep and bear arms enumerated in the bill.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/pennsylvania-bill-would-end-state-enforcement-of-a-wide-range-of-federal-gun-control/">Pennsylvania Bill Would End State Enforcement of a Wide Range of Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><strong>HARRISBURG</strong>, Pa. (July 15, 2021) &#8211; A bill introduced in the Pennsylvania House would end state and local enforcement of a wide range of federal gun control measures; past, present and future.<span id="more-37692"></span></p> <p>A large coalition of Republicans introduced House Bill 1696 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/PA/bill/HB1696/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HB1696</a>) on June 24. Under the proposed law, officers and employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would be prohibited from enforcing or attempting to enforce any infringements on the right to keep and bear arms enumerated in the bill. The legislation also includes misdemeanor charges punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and five years in prison for any U.S. government agent who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the defined infringements.</p> <p>The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:</p> <ul> <li>The National Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1968.</li> <li>taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;</li> <li>registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition;</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>HB1696 creates a cause of action in state court for any individual subjected to an effort to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms covered by the law.</p> <p><strong>EFFECTIVE</strong></p> <p>The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on <strong>most</strong> federal programs.”</p> <p>Based on <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/12/15/james-madison-four-steps-to-stop-federal-programs/">James Madison’s advice for states and individuals</a> in <em>Federalist #46</em>, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.</p> <p>Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/andrew-napolitano-federal-gun-laws-nearly-impossible-to-enforce-without-state-assistance/">he noted that a single state taking this step</a> would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.</p> <p>“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”</p> <p><strong>PROSECUTING FEDS</strong></p> <p>The state can legally punish state officers for violating the law, but prosecuting federal agents would be problematic, at best.</p> <p>Under federal statutes, any case involving a federal agent acting within the scope of his or her official duties <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqF4zyY2Kd8&amp;list=PLZyloySS5-JSG8epr6kvgfSibXxwWVUZa&amp;index=16">gets removed to federal court</a>. In other words, the current structure of the legal system makes it virtually impossible to prosecute a federal agent in state court. Lawyers for the charged federal agent would immediately make a motion to remove the case to a federal district court under <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj89u-EiIrYAhWKTSYKHfGGBSQQFggpMAA&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2Ftext%2F28%2F1442&amp;usg=AOvVaw2koNNAHVDjbbncXt0drNQ0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)</a>. Unless the state judge refused to comply, the case would then be out of state hands.</p> <p>Nevertheless, the threat of arrest would create problems for federal agents trying to enforce unconstitutional gun laws in Wisconsin and would certainly gum up the works even if they were never prosecuted. The question is whether or not local law enforcement will be willing to enforce the law on federal officials.</p> <p><strong>LEGAL BASIS</strong></p> <p>The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2018/05/23/anti-commandeering-an-overview-of-five-major-supreme-court-cases/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-commandeering doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. <em>Printz v. U.S.</em> serves as the cornerstone.</p> <blockquote><p>“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”</p></blockquote> <p><strong>No determination of constitutionality is necessary</strong> to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.</p> <p><strong>WHAT&#8217;S NEXT</strong></p> <p>HB1696 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. It&#8217;s likely the bill will only have a chance to pass out of this committee if the sponsors are willing to remove provisions of the bill with criminal sanctions for federal agents.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/pennsylvania-bill-would-end-state-enforcement-of-a-wide-range-of-federal-gun-control/">Pennsylvania Bill Would End State Enforcement of a Wide Range of Federal Gun Control</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Bills 2nd Amendment firearms Gun Control HB1696 Pennsylvania Mike Maharrey Fusion Centers Enter Kids As Young As 1 Year Old in Secret Gang Databases https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/fusion-centers-enter-kids-as-young-as-1-year-old-in-secret-gang-databases/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:908ce157-4f8e-f35a-31b3-9f188614f867 Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:33:25 +0000 <p>Recent documents from the Metropolitan Police Department in D.C. (MPD) and the Boston Police Department (BPD) show that Regional Intelligence Centers (RIC), also know as fusion centers, are encouraging police officers to put children and adults in secret gang databases.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/fusion-centers-enter-kids-as-young-as-1-year-old-in-secret-gang-databases/">Fusion Centers Enter Kids As Young As 1 Year Old in Secret Gang Databases</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Recent documents from the Metropolitan Police Department in D.C. (MPD) and the Boston Police Department (BPD) show that <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/fusion-center-locations-and-contact-information" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Regional Intelligence Centers</a> (RIC), also know as <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/02/details-of-fusion-center-surveillance-revealed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fusion centers</a>, are encouraging police officers to put children and adults in secret gang databases.<span id="more-37703"></span></p> <p>Last month an <a href="https://theintercept.com/2021/06/18/dc-police-gang-database-hacked-emails/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a> in <i>The Intercept </i>showed that police gang databases are riddled with civil rights violations and errors. It revealed how police used civilian analysts to create flawed RIC (Fusion Center) gang member databases.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;A spreadsheet of the MPD database shared internally the next month included a supposed gang member who was less than 1 year old, as well as 2, 3, 5, and 6-year-olds. The 2,575 names in the spreadsheet also included children as young as 14.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>As <a href="https://youtu.be/k3aiNXx20Dk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the video</a> explains, RICs are entering shooting victims&#8217; names into their gang databases. Law enforcement uses &#8220;hazy criteria&#8221; to justify entering the 1 to 14 year-olds names.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Documents reviewed by The Intercept, show how the MPD identifies supposed gang members by using hazy criteria <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/22/groups-urge-nypd-inspector-general-audit-nypd-gang-database" target="_blank" rel="noopener">typical of</a> <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/calgang/reg-ch7.5-calgang-db.pdf?">other</a> <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5816977/OIG-CPD-Gang-Database-Review.pdf">gang</a> <a href="https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/foia/privacy-impact-assessment-gangnetpdf/download">databases</a> in the United States and how the department pushes officers to frequently add names to the database. The emails also reveal that the MPD shares information from the database — including full spreadsheets of its contents — with outside agencies and larger regional gang databases and that the department uses it to inform its aggressive policing initiatives.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>For the past eleven years, all the Metropolitan police officers had to do to justify entering juvenile names into their gang database was to use the term &#8220;reasonable suspicion.&#8221;</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Officers can add a gang member if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person checks two of seven boxes, including associating with validated gang members, being identified as a gang member by an unproven informant, and having been arrested in a gang area for an offense that is part of the gang’s criminal enterprise. Officers can forgo the two-criteria requirement if someone credibly admits to being in a gang — a workaround other departments have been shown to <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-02/three-more-lapd-officers-charged-with-falsifying-information-in-gang-labeling-scandal" target="_blank" rel="noopener">falsify</a> or <a href="http://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-130.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">abuse</a> — or if a reliable informant pegs them as a gang member.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>This is almost the same gang database system that the BPD&#8217;s Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC) uses.</p> <p>A BPD &#8220;Gang Assessment Database&#8221; <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5086f19ce4b0ad16ff15598d/t/60c008de38813c6f9ecda1f9/1623197918488/ACFrOgB2rFeSFgLdZEW8mws9eunEbgjaWMwzU5UJnIMONIeFfoVLprGEvsHWcfTYpaI4hoI30Ioacz7pDChr_r4LIBNaBY0RnDvKYv4BH-1fuE_FV0q6FmD6J07iocJKdM9B95o1TG8BvW6GTi9o.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">document</a> released to the public is nearly an exact duplicate of the MPD&#8217;s gang database.</p> <p>BRIC&#8217;s &#8220;Point-Based Verification System&#8221; allows police officers to put suspicious people in their gang database simply because they are wearing the wrong color clothing or are frequenting a specific area. (Sec. 4.1)</p> <p>It only takes 10 points to place a person in BRIC&#8217;s gang database.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The BRIC will analyze the validity of the supporting documentation for each individual criteria used to verify an associate and maintain the discretion to decline to use the information towards any criterion.  The BRIC will maintain the discretion to decline to enter individuals into the database who meet the 10 point criteria but are determined to not be engaged in gang-related criminal activity.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>The following list of items or activities may result in an individual’s verification for entry into the Gang Assessment Database (Sec.5):</p> <ul> <li>Contact with Known Gang Associate (FIO) (2 points per interaction) FIOs shall not be used as the sole verification criteria for any individual.</li> <li>Court and Investigative Documents (9 points)</li> <li>Documented Association (Police Incident Report) (4 points per interaction)</li> <li>Group Related Photograph (2 points) Information Developed During Investigation and/or Surveillance (5 points)</li> <li>Information from Anonymous Informant or Tipster (1 point)</li> <li>Information from Reliable, Confidential Informant (5 points)</li> <li>Known Group Tattoo or Marking (8 points)</li> <li>Membership Documents (9 points)</li> <li>Named in Documents as a Associate / Member(8 points)</li> <li>Participation in Publications (8 points)</li> <li><span dir="ltr">Possession of Documents (8 points if not in custody or incarcerated; 3 points if in </span><span dir="ltr">custody or incarcerated) </span></li> <li>Possession of Gang Publications (2 points)</li> <li>Prior Validation by a Law Enforcement Agency (9 points) <span dir="ltr">The Law Enforcement Agencies validation process must be at least as rigorous as </span><span dir="ltr">that used by the Boston Police Department. </span></li> <li>Published News Accounts (1 point)</li> <li>Self Admission (8 points)</li> <li>Use and or Possession of Group Paraphernalia or Identifiers (4 points)</li> <li><span dir="ltr">Victim/Target Affiliated with Associate of Rival Group (8 points if not in custody </span><span dir="ltr">or incarcerated; 3 points if in custody or incarcerated)</span></li> </ul> <p>All it takes to put a person in the gang database is for an RIC analyst or the Commander, or the Commander of the Youth Violence Strike Force or their designees to sign off on it.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;Authorized Users will be able to submit an individual for consideration for admission into the Gang Assessment Database. All submissions for verification shall include documentation to support the individual’s entry into the Gang Assessment Database using the Point-Based Verification System. Submissions can be made to the Commander of the BRIC or his/her designee or the Commander of the Youth Violence Strike Force or his/her designee. All submissions for verification will be manually reviewed by a BRIC analyst and supervisor to determine compliance with this rule prior to entry into the database.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>In Springfield, Massachusetts the school committee allows their Real Time Crime Center to <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2021/06/massachusetts-school-committee-allows.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">monitor students&#8217; live</a>. Across the country, RICs use <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2020/08/newspapers-fusion-centers-have-secretly.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">private security officers, hotel workers, mall employees, teachers, trash collectors, ministers, priests, rabbi&#8217;s and even counselors</a> to secretly report people to fusion centers. Maine&#8217;s fusion center secretly collects information on <a href="https://www.pressherald.com/2020/07/12/stolen-documents-show-maine-police-unit-shifted-focus-from-terrorism-to-routine-crimes/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">political activists, anti-government groups, gun owners and alleged domestic extremists</a>.</p> <p>Fusion centers are also giving our homes <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2015/07/police-are-giving-american-addresses.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">color-coded risk assessments based on food deliveries</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;The database goes through all public information for the call’s location — from arrest records to pizza deliveries — and gives the address a rating. Green means minimal threat, yellow a possible threat and red a major threat. This is all done in a few seconds.&#8221;</p></blockquote> <p>The futility of fusion center gang databases can best be explained by Boston Police spokesperson Sgt. Det. John Boyle who said in the video, &#8220;the majority of firearms violence in Boston is driven by gang dynamics, with a small number of people causing a disproportionate amount of violent episodes.&#8221;</p> <p>If only a few people are responsible for gun violence, why do we have secret fusion center gang databases? If only a few thousand people stormed the White House why do we have a secret, RIC &#8220;<a href="https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article252333803.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">red book&#8221;</a> and <a href="https://reason.com/2021/06/21/the-biden-administrations-model-red-flag-law-belies-the-justice-departments-avowed-commitment-to-due-process/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">&#8220;red flag&#8221;</a> system for domestic terrorists?</p> <p>Why do we have secret <a href="https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/grounded-life-no-fly-list" target="_blank" rel="noopener">No-Fly lists</a> when only a few people drove planes into the World Trade Center? Why are there <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-limits-claims-wrongly-160521629.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">8,000 innocent Americans</a> on a secret terror watch list? Why do the FBI and DHS want Americans to <a href="https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/fbi-asking-people-to-report-family-members-and-peers-for-extremism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report family members</a> suspected of extremism? And finally, why does the White House want the NCTC to target <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2021/07/police-to-target-americans-for-their.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">people&#8217;s beliefs and ideologies</a>?</p> <p>Unless we demand a change,  all of these examples of federal overreach; gang databases, terrorist watchlisting are only going to get worse.</p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2021/07/fusion-centers-enter-kids-as-young-as-1.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">originally published at MassPrivateI</a>.</em></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/fusion-centers-enter-kids-as-young-as-1-year-old-in-secret-gang-databases/">Fusion Centers Enter Kids As Young As 1 Year Old in Secret Gang Databases</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Police Surveillance fusion centers Privacy surveillance jprivate Maine Ends Civil Asset Forfeiture, Opts Out of Federal Equitable Sharing Program https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/maine-ends-civil-asset-forfeiture-opts-out-of-federal-equitable-sharing-program/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:db99a1e6-1561-65c8-93a5-6e4b35c7aa56 Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:28:31 +0000 <p>The new law repealed the state's civil forfeiture process and implemented a criminal procedure that requires a conviction before prosecutors can proceed with asset forfeiture in most cases.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/maine-ends-civil-asset-forfeiture-opts-out-of-federal-equitable-sharing-program/">Maine Ends Civil Asset Forfeiture, Opts Out of Federal Equitable Sharing Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p><b>AUGUSTA</b>, Maine (July 15, 2021) – On Tuesday, a Maine bill that reforms the state’s asset forfeiture laws to require a criminal conviction and opts the state out of a federal asset forfeiture program known as “equitable sharing&#8221; became law without the governor&#8217;s signature.<span id="more-37717"></span></p> <p>Rep. William Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) along with two fellow Republicans, four Democrats and a Libertarian, introduced House Bill 1521 (<a href="https://legiscan.com/ME/bill/LD1521/2021" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LD1521</a>) on April 15. The new law repealed the state&#8217;s civil forfeiture process and implemented a criminal procedure that requires a conviction before prosecutors can proceed with asset forfeiture in most cases.</p> <blockquote><p>“It’s a very simple concept; you don’t lose your property unless you used it in the commission of a crime, or knowingly allowed someone else to use it in the commission of a crime,” bill sponsor Rep. Billy Bob Faulkingham wrote in <a class="color-link" title="http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getTestimonyDoc.asp?id=162609" href="http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getTestimonyDoc.asp?id=162609" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-ga-track="ExternalLink:http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getTestimonyDoc.asp?id=162609" aria-label="May testimony">May testimony</a> supporting his bill. “It is time to end this workaround that makes people prove innocence, rather than prosecutors proving guilt. This is one of the founding principles of our country.”</p></blockquote> <p>The law also effectively opts Maine out of a federal program that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws. This is particularly important in light of a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/07/30/states-can-thwart-new-doj-asset-forfeiture-policy/">policy directive issued in July 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions</a> for the Department of Justice (DOJ) that remains in effect today.</p> <p>On June 3, both the House and the Senate gave final approval to LD1521. Gov. Janet Mills took no action within her allotted time and it became law without her signature on June 13.</p> <p>The <a href="https://ij.org/pfp-state-pages/pfp-maine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Institute for Justice gives Maine’s current asset forfeiture process a B+</a> grade because none of the proceeds go to law enforcement. But the IJ notes that “Maine’s law grade could be even higher if not for the state’s low standard of proof. Law enforcement may forfeit property by showing by a mere preponderance of the evidence that it is tied to a crime. In most cases, Maine law also puts the burden on innocent owners to prove that they had nothing to do with the alleged criminal activity with which their property has been associated.” The new law will correct many of the problems in the current process.</p> <p><strong>NECESSARY</strong></p> <p>While some people believe the Supreme Court “ended asset forfeiture, its opinion in <i>Timbs v. Indiana</i> <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/02/asset-forfeiture-was-not-ended-by-the-supreme-court-good-morning-liberty-02-25-19/">ended nothing</a>. Without further action, civil asset forfeiture remains. Additionally, as law professor <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/20/supreme-court-rules-that-excessive-fines">Ilya Somin noted</a>, the Court left an important issue unresolved. What exactly counts as “excessive” in the civil forfeiture context?</p> <blockquote><p>“That is likely to be a hotly contested issue in the lower federal courts over the next few years. The ultimate effect of today’s decision depends in large part on how that question is resolved. If courts rule that only a few unusually extreme cases qualify as excessive, the impact of Timbs might be relatively marginal.”</p></blockquote> <p>Going forward, opponents of civil asset forfeiture could wait and see how lower federal courts will address this “over the next few years,” or they can do what a number of states have already taken steps to do, end the practice on a state level, and opt out of the federal equitable sharing program as well.</p> <p><strong>FEDERAL LOOPHOLE</strong></p> <p>A federal program known as “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH6vYLXTfGI">Equitable Sharing</a>” allows prosecutors to bypass more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the federal government through a process known as adoption. The DOJ directive reiterates full support for the equitable sharing program, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.</p> <p>Law enforcement agencies can circumvent more strict state forfeiture laws by claiming cases are federal in nature. Under these arrangements, state officials simply hand cases over to a federal agency, participate in the case, and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds. However, when states merely withdraw from participation, the federal directive loses its impact.</p> <p>Until recently, California faced this situation. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but state and local police were circumventing the state process by passing cases to the feds. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, <em>Policing for Profit</em>, California ranked as the worst offender of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. The <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/09/signed-as-law-california-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state closed the loophole</a> in 2016.</p> <p><a href="https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/?state=ME" target="_blank" rel="noopener">According to the IJ</a>, Maine agencies forfeited a little more than $3 million under state law between 2009 and 2019. Meanwhile, Maine law enforcement agencies collected more than $14 million through equitable sharing over the past two decades.</p> <p>LD1521 directly addresses the federal equitable sharing program with the following language:</p> <blockquote><p>Unless seized property under this section includes United States currency in excess of $100,000, a law enforcement agency, prosecuting authority, state agency, county or municipality may not enter into an agreement to transfer or refer property seized under this section to a federal agency directly, indirectly, through adoption, through an intergovernmental joint task force or by other means that circumvent the provisions of this section.</p></blockquote> <p>The vast majority of forfeiture cases fall below the $100,000 threshold. In Maine, half of all cash forfeitures were under $1,670.</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> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/maine-ends-civil-asset-forfeiture-opts-out-of-federal-equitable-sharing-program/">Maine Ends Civil Asset Forfeiture, Opts Out of Federal Equitable Sharing Program</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Asset Forfeiture State Bills Equitable Sharing LD1521 Maine Mike Maharrey This Strategy Is Not Enough https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/this-strategy-is-not-enough/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:921c9e17-49f0-5fa9-4813-8c39010982a4 Thu, 15 Jul 2021 00:43:22 +0000 <p>Most Americans focus on the "vote the bums out" strategy of political activism. It's not enough for what we face today.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/this-strategy-is-not-enough/">This Strategy Is Not Enough</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>Most Americans focus on the &#8220;vote the bums out&#8221; strategy of political activism. It&#8217;s not enough for what we face today.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> <p lang="en" dir="ltr">The problem with &quot;voting the bums out&quot; is you almost always end up with new bums. <a href="https://twitter.com/mmaharrey10th?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mmaharrey10th</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/10thAmendment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#10thAmendment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/nullify?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#nullify</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/libertarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#libertarian</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/liberty?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#liberty</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/constitution?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#constitution</a> <a href="https://t.co/VkFfpGCy0N">pic.twitter.com/VkFfpGCy0N</a></p> <p>&mdash; TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) <a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1415054174535004162?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 13, 2021</a></p></blockquote> <p><script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p> <p>Thomas Jefferson said voting the bums out works fine when you&#8217;re just dealing with bad policies &#8211; as he put it &#8220;an abuse of the delegated powers.&#8221; But &#8220;<span style="font-weight: 400">where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.&#8221;</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400">We&#8217;re well past fixing things by voting the bums out. We need more nullifying!</span></p> <p><strong>For Further Reading</strong></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification-overview/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nullification</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/kentucky-resolutions-of-1798/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kentucky Resolutions of 1798</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/this-strategy-is-not-enough/">This Strategy Is Not Enough</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. Audio/Video Maharrey Minute Strategy Constitution Nullification Term Limits Mike Maharrey Free Speech Under Attack: The Sedition Act of 1798 https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/free-speech-under-attack-the-sedition-act-of-1798/ Tenth Amendment Center Blog urn:uuid:f51ddb71-b9c1-d7b4-eef2-e73a2f42d573 Wed, 14 Jul 2021 17:36:41 +0000 <p>On July 14, 1798 - John Adams signed the Sedition Act into law. This is one of the most egregious violations of the Constitution in history - criminalizing free speech and the press just years after the 1st Amendment was ratified.</p> The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/free-speech-under-attack-the-sedition-act-of-1798/">Free Speech Under Attack: The Sedition Act of 1798</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. <p>On July 14, 1798 &#8211; John Adams signed the Sedition Act into law. This is one of the most egregious violations of the Constitution in history &#8211; criminalizing free speech and the press just years after the 1st Amendment was ratified.</p> <p>Path to Liberty: July 14, 2021 <span id="more-37711"></span></p> <p>Subscribe: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/path-to-liberty/id1440549211?app=podcast&amp;mt=2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple</a> | <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7iRUIPjKQLyfKbunOuYIBq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotify</a> | <a href="https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/b4yrd-92c48/Path-to-Liberty-Podcast" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Podbean</a> | <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLnRlbnRoYW1lbmRtZW50Y2VudGVyLmNvbS9jYXRlZ29yeS92aWRlby9nb29kLW1vcm5pbmctbGliZXJ0eS9mZWVkLw?sa=X&amp;ved=0CAYQrrcFahcKEwigwITb6MrrAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Google</a> | <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=340324&amp;refid=stpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stitcher</a> | <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Path-to-Liberty-p1357275/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TuneIn</a> | <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/video/good-morning-liberty/feed/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">RSS</a> | <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">More Platforms Here</a></p> <p><iframe loading="lazy" width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Xr5RP9QEkt8?start=45" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><strong>SHOW LINKS:</strong><br /> <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JOIN TAC</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/pathtoliberty/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Show Archives</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/07/today-in-history-sedition-act-signed-into-law-on-july-14-1798/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Today in History: Sedition Act signed into law on July 14, 1798</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sedition-act-becomes-federal-law" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Sedition Act becomes federal law</a></p> <p><a href="https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1700s/The-Sedition-Act-of-1798/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The Sedition Act of 1798</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/sedition-act-1798" rel="noopener" target="_blank">The Sedition Act, 1798</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.masshist.org/publications/adams-papers/index.php/view/PJA04dg2" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Adams &#8211; Thoughts on Government (April 1776)</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/john-adams-from-revolutionary-to-monarchist/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">John Adams: From Revolutionary to Monarchist?</a></p> <p><a href="https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&#038;fileName=008/llac008.db&#038;recNum=440" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Full debate records</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/T-08693_0.pdf" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Full Text of Sedition Act (pdf)</a></p> <p><a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/11/16/today-in-history-kentucky-resolutions-signed-on-nov-16-1798/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Today in History: Kentucky Resolutions Signed on Nov. 16, 1798</a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-17-02-0119" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Jefferson to Madison (3 Nov 1798) on Matthew Lyon</a></p> <p><a href="https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/jefferson%E2%80%99s-fair-copy" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson’s fair copy &#8211; before 4 Oct 1798 </a></p> <p><a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-17-02-0128" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Madison Virginia resolutions </a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/09/criminalizing-free-speech-the-sedition-act-trials/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Criminalizing Free Speech: The Sedition Act Trials</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/11/thomas-jeffersons-other-declaration-the-kentucky-resolutions-of-1798/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson’s Other Declaration: The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798</a></p> <p><a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/12/james-madison-how-to-defeat-federal-programs/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">James Madison: How to Defeat Federal Programs</a></p> <p><strong>MORE VIDEO SOURCES</strong><br /> <a href="https://odysee.com/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-071221:a" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Odysee</a></p> <p><a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/tenthamendmentcenter/view/partisan-hacks-laughing-all-the-way-60ec7d7cd66bc9cad3faa289" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Gab TV</a></p> <p><a href="https://lbry.tv/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6/path-071221:a" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LBRY</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1261372935984562176" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Minds</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.brighteon.com/ead08983-90ba-4da2-a233-e085da3bb774" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Brighteon</a></p> <p><a href="https://fb.watch/v/1hIT9T15R/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Facebook</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.bitchute.com/video/25JoMl9Id5C1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Bitchute</a></p> <p><a href="https://bittube.tv/post/1d94a186-f4ac-47b2-a990-c52432d99480" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on BitTube</a></p> <p><a href="https://hyprr.com/hypetv/videos/00929c74-17b3-47c1-9697-9e2317be910d" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Hyprr</a></p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1414622580393267201" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on Twitter</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6820407311572578304/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on LinkedIn</a></p> <p><a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter/show/60ec80663122854f017aeb6b" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Watch on MeWe</a></p> <p><strong>FOLLOW and SUPPORT TAC:</strong></p> <p>Become a Member: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/</a><br /> Email Newsletter: <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register">http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/register</a><br /> RSS: <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest">http://feeds.feedburner.com/tacdailydigest</a></p> <p>VIDEO PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://odysee.com/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Odysee</a><br /> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter?section=hypetv" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HypeTV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.brighteon.com/channels/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brighteon</a><br /> <a href="https://tv.gab.com/channel/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab TV</a><br /> <a href="https://www.bitchute.com/channel/X0AJnBhWbCkx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bitchute</a><br /> <a href="https://bittube.tv/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BitTube</a><br /> <a href="https://dlive.tv/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DLive</a><br /> <a href="https://www.twitch.tv/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitch</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/channel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IGTV</a><br /> <a href="https://lbry.tv/$/invite/@TenthAmendmentCenter:6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LBRY</a></p> <p>SOCIAL PLATFORMS</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/tenthamendment" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a><br /> <a href="https://www.minds.com/TenthAmendmentCenter/?referrer=TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Minds</a><br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a><br /> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a><br /> <a href="https://gab.com/TenthAmendmentCenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gab</a><br /> <a href="https://mewe.com/p/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeWe</a><br /> <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/tenthamendmentcenter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LinkedIn</a><br /> <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/tenthamendment/_created/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pinterest</a><br /> <a href="https://hyprr.com/profile/tenthamendmentcenter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hyprr</a></p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span>The post <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/free-speech-under-attack-the-sedition-act-of-1798/">Free Speech Under Attack: The Sedition Act of 1798</a> first appeared on <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. 1st Amendment Alien and Sedition Acts Audio/Video History Path to Liberty James Madison John Adams Sedition Act thomas jefferson Michael Boldin Tenth Amendment Center 32:08 On July 14, 1798 - John Adams signed the Sedition Act into law. This is one of the most egregious violations of the Constitution in history - criminalizing free speech and the press just years after the 1st Amendment was ratified. On July 14, 1798 - John Adams signed the Sedition Act into law. This is one of the most egregious violations of the Constitution in history - criminalizing free speech and the press just years after the 1st Amendment was ratified.<br /> Former Prosecutor Whines About “Constitutional Carry” Interfering With His War on Drugs https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/14/former-prosecutor-whines-about-constitutional-carry-interfering-with-his-war-on-drugs/ Tenth Amendment Center urn:uuid:d51370b5-2b70-556b-aeb7-7a68070ef104 Wed, 14 Jul 2021 12:01:01 +0000 <p>After decades of fighting the fed's war on drugs, local cops have internalized this federal policing priority.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/14/former-prosecutor-whines-about-constitutional-carry-interfering-with-his-war-on-drugs/">Former Prosecutor Whines About “Constitutional Carry” Interfering With His War on Drugs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> <p>Police lobbyists fiercely resist virtually every effort to roll back gun control. Why is that?</p> <p>As with most things relating to policing in modern America, it comes back to the &#8220;war on drugs.&#8221;<span id="more-36449"></span></p> <p>For instance, <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/03/29/missouri-sheriffs-association-working-to-kill-2nd-amendment-preservation-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the Missouri Sheriffs’ Association aggressively lobbied</a> to gut the <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/06/signed-by-the-governor-missouri-2nd-amendment-preservation-act-now-in-effect/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Second Amendment  Preservation Act</a> recently passed in Missouri. The MSA  claimed that banning them from enforcing current federal gun control – and anything new from the Biden administration – would stop them from “catching criminals.” This is a typical law enforcement scare tactic. In reality, these law enforcement lobby groups are primarily concerned with preserving their “federal partnerships” along with all of the federal grant money, asset forfeiture money, and power that go along with them.</p> <p>Almost all of these “partnerships” revolve around the federal “war on drugs,” which, by the way, is unconstitutional. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it required a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol nationally. Why is marijuana any different?</p> <p>The federal government has used the drug war to effectively create a national police force operating under euphemisms such as “joint task forces” and “state/federal partnerships.” It incentives state and local cops using lots of money, including grant and forfeiture dollars, to work with federal law enforcement. The bottom line is your local cops work for the feds every single day. They like it that way. And they aren’t about to risk those partnerships so you can keep your AR-15. I see the evidence every single day as I watch these cop lobbies oppose every effort to stop enforcement of federal gun control and dumb Republicans bowing to the pressure.</p> <p>After decades of fighting the fed&#8217;s war on drugs, local cops have internalized this federal policing priority.</p> <p>Cop lobbies sometimes even oppose &#8220;constitutional carry&#8221; because it interferes with their drug war.</p> <p>Missouri passed &#8220;constitutional carry&#8221; in 2017, making it legal to carry a concealed handgun without a permit legal in the state. During <a href="https://wpln.org/post/what-tennessees-new-permitless-carry-law-means-for-black-gun-owners/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an interview</a> former St. Louis prosecutor turned Democrat state senator Steven Roberts complained that permitless carry made it harder for cops to prosecute drug cases. Before permitless carry, police could arrest people for carrying a firearm without a permit and get a search warrant. That would often lead to the discovery of &#8220;contraband.&#8221; That&#8217;s cop-talk for weed or other drugs.</p> <blockquote><p>&#8220;We’d have officers bring in cases that normally before this constitutional carry law passed I could issue. But once it went into effect I’d no longer be able to issue this type of case. … I wouldn’t be able to issue it because it was an unlawful search and seizure.”</p></blockquote> <p>Don&#8217;t miss what Roberts is telling you. He thinks you should have to get a government permission slip to carry a firearm so cops can catch some kid with weed.</p> <p>Republicans may think that Roberts just opposes permitless carry because he&#8217;s a Democrat. But we&#8217;ve seen Republicans bow to police lobbies and water down bills to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Appeasing their cop buddies is more important than the Second Amendment.</p> <p>West Virginia lawmakers caved to police lobbyists and gutted a bill that would have ended state and local enforcement of current or future federal gun control measures that don’t have concurrent measures in state la, turning it into <a href="https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/now-in-effect-fake-west-virginia-gun-sanctuary-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a fake gun sanctuary bill</a>.</p> <p>Charleston Police Chief James “Tyke” Hunt warned that the bill as originally introduced would effectively defund the police by cutting off federal money – and would make coordination with federal authorities, such as the federal BATFE, impossible. He said that without funding from and coordination with the ATF, his county’s drug problems would grow.</p> <p>“If this bill passes and these funds go away, the Metro Drug Unit will not exist,” Hunt said, adding, “We will soon have a bigger drug problem in Kanawha County.”</p> <p>Constitutionally, a Metro Drug Unit funded by the feds shouldn&#8217;t exist, any more than federal gun control should exist. But a lot of cops are perfectly happy with both. The Constitution isn&#8217;t a priority here.</p> <p>Here&#8217;s the takeaway, pretty much everything cops say really means war on drugs. They say &#8220;catching dangerous criminals,&#8221; they mean war on drugs. They say &#8220;officer safety,&#8221; they mean war on drugs. When they say they support or oppose this or that policy because of this or that reason, they mean war on drugs.</p> <p>Bottom line &#8211; you can&#8217;t simultaneously support the war on drugs and the Constitution. They are diametrically opposed.</p> <div class='ctx-module-container ctx_default_placement ctx-clearfix'></div><span class="ctx-article-root"><!-- --></span><p>The post <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/07/14/former-prosecutor-whines-about-constitutional-carry-interfering-with-his-war-on-drugs/">Former Prosecutor Whines About “Constitutional Carry” Interfering With His War on Drugs</a> first appeared on <a href="https://tenthamendmentcenter.com">Tenth Amendment Center</a>.</p> Drug War Police Right to Keep and Bear Arms war-on-drugs Mike Maharrey