Maine Governor Begs Feds to “Bring the Hammer Down” on His Own State

...from Tenth Amendment Center
Gov. Paul LePage is doing it wrong.
Instead of protecting the people of Maine from overreaching and unconstitutional federal overreach, he’s begging the feds to trample on his state’s sovereignty.
You see, the Republican governor doesn’t like marijuana. And he doesn’t like the fact that the people of his state voted to legalize weed. He wants to maintain prohibition on cannabis. But since the people he supposedly represents have spoken, he finds himself in an awkward situation.
His solution?
Encourage the feds to enforce prohibition in Maine for him.
During a radio interview on WVOM radio in Bangor, LePage scolded the legislature for not simply overriding the will of the people. He also indicated he was urging the feds to do come to Maine and “put the hammer down.”

“I would have just repealed it and said, ‘Listen, federal law says it’s illegal, let’s move to the federal government and let them deal with this.’ In fact, I’m urging Jeff Sessions to put the hammer down on states that have recreational marijuana.”

LePage talked tough against the feds when Obama was in office. He told the U.S. Department of Commerce to take a hike when it sent a request asking him to turn over classified state information relating to people on Maine’s welfare rolls. LePage refused to cooperate, telling the feds “states don’t work for you.”
That was an nice moment. LePage also recently signed bills into law prohibiting the creation of gun registries in Maine, and expanding food freedom. So, he’s done some good things.
But LePage exemplifies the problem with so many politicians. They only stand up for the Constitution when it advances their policy preferences. When it doesn’t, they trample on it like one of those paper mats mechanics put in your car while they’re working on it.
LePage is right about one thing. The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970 says marijuana is illegal across the U.S. But, 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.
By inviting the federal government to “put the hammer down” on states with legal marijuana – including his own – he effectively shreds the constitution, obliterates his state’s sovereignty and undermines any future efforts to resist federal overreach. After all, if the feds can enforce weed prohibition, why can’t they enforce gun laws? Or environmental  policy? Or make the state give up information about its welfare recipients?
The governor has conceded the Constitution doesn’t matter. Separation of powers don’t matter. The feds stand almighty and supreme.
Yes governor, you’re doing it wrong.

Mike Maharrey
July 30, 2017 at 08:10PM

States Can Thwart New DOJ Asset Forfeiture Policy

...from Tenth Amendment Center
Attorney General Jeff Sessions wants to ramp up federal asset forfeiture. State action  – – or more accurately inaction – – can stop him.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice issued policy guidance on federal asset forfeiture directing the federal government to aggressively seize property even if they never charge the owner with a crime, including in states that require a criminal conviction to complete forfeiture.
The DOJ issued the directive to implement Sessions’ order to ramp up asset forfeiture.

JUST IN: DOJ new asset forfeiture policy – police can seize property from people not charged w/crime even in states where it’s been banned. pic.twitter.com/P8K0g80m4E

— Paula Reid (@PaulaReidCBS) July 19, 2017

Under the federal law, state and local police can pass asset forfeiture cases off to federal prosecutors. Once the feds “adopt” a case, the forfeiture then moves forward under federal law, often affording less protections for individuals than state law. By placing the case under federal jurisdiction, state and local law enforcement can bypass more stringent provisions under state law, such as the requirement for a criminal conviction, and collect up to 80 percent of the proceeds from forfeited assets via the federal Equitable Sharing Program.
In 2015, Holder issued a directive limiting “federal adoption” of state and local forfeiture cases to cases involving “public safety.” The DOJ resumed the program in 2016. The new DOJ order reiterates full support for adoption, directs federal law enforcement agencies to aggressively utilize it, and sets the stage to expand it in the future.
During a speech, Sessions hinted that adoptive forfeiture provides an opportunity to expand federal forfeiture.
“Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate,” he said, “as is sharing with our partners.”
Institute of Justice attorney Everett Johnson told the Washington Post this is clearly a way to help state and local police skirt restrictions imposed by state governments.

“This is a federalism issue. Any return to federal adoptive forfeitures would circumvent limitations on civil forfeiture that are imposed by state legislatures … the Department of Justice is saying ‘we’re going to help state and local law enforcement to get around those reforms.’”

According to the institute of Justice, 13 states have reformed their laws and can only proceed with forfeiture after a criminal conviction. This doesn’t mean police can’t seize property incidental to an arrest, but the state can’t keep it without a guilty verdict. If the individual is not convicted, or the state never files charges, it must return the property. Through federal adoption, police and prosecutors can bypass the stringent state process, complete forfeiture through the federal system, and then collect a big chunk of the proceeds.
This federal directive underscores the importance of explicitly prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from passing cases off to the federal government.
California provides a good blueprint. The Golden State had some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but law enforcement often bypassed the state restrictions by allowing the feds to adopt their cases. They then cashed in on the Equitable Sharing money. According to a report by the Institute for Justice, Policing for Profit, California was the top recipient of federal asset forfeiture proceeds between 2000 and 2013, revealing just how often police were taking advantage of the federal process. During the 2016 legislative session, the state closed the loophole.
Other states have also prohibited passing off asset forfeiture cases to the feds as part of their civil asset forfeiture reform, including New Mexico, Arizona and Nebraska. But other states have implemented forfeiture reform measures leaving the loophole open, including Iowa and Connecticut.
In order to make state forfeiture reforms truly effective, and slow Sessions’ push to ramp up federal forfeiture across the U.S., states need to ensure their asset forfeiture process includes the following language closing the loophole.

A law enforcement agency or prosecuting authority may not enter into an agreement to transfer or refer seized property to a federal agency directly, indirectly, by adoption, through an intergovernmental joint taskforce or by other means for the purposes of forfeiture litigation and instead must refer the seized property to appropriate local or state prosecuting authorities for forfeiture litigation under this chapter unless the seized property includes U.S. currency in excess of $50,000.
This paragraph preempts laws by township, municipal, county and other governments in the state which regulate civil and criminal forfeiture.

Sessions wants to roll back the clock and undo all of the progress made in curbing asset forfeiture over the last few years. But states can stop him dead in his tracks. All they have to do is simply refuse to participate in the federal Equitable Sharing program. Don’t allow state and local police to transfer cases. Just say no.

Mike Maharrey
July 30, 2017 at 02:30AM

Responding to Liberal Vitriol & Over Politicized Judiciary

Do you get tired of the name calling and the irrational attacks for simply defending the Constitution?  KrisAnne gives some advice on how to deal with the Liberal Vitriol and keep your sanity.  This and more on today’s show.
The post Responding to Liberal Vitriol & Over Politicized Judiciary appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.


Read the full article at krisannehall.com July 29, 2017 at 07:34AM

See Something Say Something

  This is the second installment of a podcast following local activism efforts I am spearheading to address the surveillance state in Lexington, Ky. Through this series, you will get an inside look at boots-on-the-ground activism as it happens. The goal is to create a step-by-step how-to on tackling issues at the local level. You can access the other episodes HERE.

  You’ve probably heard the Department of Homeland Security slogan “If you see something, say something.” Well, the same principle applies to local activism.

•   First you have to identify the problem – see something.
•   Next you have to let people know the problem exists so you have some allies in your efforts – say something.

  In this installment of the Activist 101 Podcast, I explain exactly what I saw, and the first steps I took to get the word out.