Tenth Amendment Center: Status Report: Seventeen States Flat-Out Ignoring Federal Hemp Laws and Markets Are Thriving

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

Even with the liberalization of the law in 2014, the federal government still prohibits industrial hemp production for commercial purposes. But this hasn’t stopped more than a dozen states from developing commercial hemp markets anyway. They’ve simply ignored the federal laws, nullifying prohibition in effect within their borders.

Seventeen states specifically authorize and license commercial hemp production despite federal prohibition, and many other states allow commercial cultivation despite paying lip-service to federal law.

FEDERAL FARM BILL

In 2014, Congress cracked the door open for hemp in the U.S. with an amendment to the 2014 Farm Bill. The law allows hemp cultivation for research purposes, but prohibits “commercial” production.

The “hemp amendment” in the 2014 farm bill  —

…allows State Agriculture Departments, colleges and universities to grow hemp, defined as the non-drug oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis, for academic or agricultural research purposes, but it applies only to states where industrial hemp farming is already legal under state law.

In 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Drug Enforcement Agency released a “statement of principles” to guide interpretation of the hemp section in the Farm Bill. It states, “The growth and cultivation of industrial hemp may only take place in accordance with an agricultural pilot program to study the growth, cultivation, or marketing of industrial hemp established by a State department of agriculture or State agency responsible for agriculture in a State where the production of industrial hemp is otherwise legal under State law.”

In short, the current federal law authorizes farming of hemp – by research institutions, or within state pilot programs – for research only. Farming for commercial purposes by individuals and businesses remains prohibited.

The definition of “commercial” and the extent to which sales and marketing are allowed under the rubric of “research” remains murky. This has created significant confusion.

The statement of principles also asserted that industrial hemp programs are limited to fiber and seed. It didn’t mention CBD oil or other edible hemp products. In fact, the DEA has declared CBD illegal, and the FDA has also indicated hemp food products manufactured through research programs also violate federal law.

The DEA has since reiterated its stand on CBD oil, saying it cannot be sold under any circumstances. An Indiana TV station interviewed DEA spokesman Rusty Payne. who affirmed this position.

“It’s not legal. It’s just not.”

Payne said cannabis plants are considered a Schedule I controlled substance, and medicinal oils derived from cannabis plants are illegal according to two federal laws: the Controlled Substance Act and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. He said confusion surrounding the 2014 farm bill is frequently cited as legal justification by those who want to manufacture, sell or use CBD oil. The DEA believes the Farm Bill permits only CBD research — not CBD marketing and sales.

“Anybody who’s in violation [of the federal laws] always runs that risk of arrest and prosecution,” he said.

IN THE STATES

According to a report released by the National Conference of State Legislators, 35 states have passed laws legalizing industrial hemp production. About half only allow cultivation for research purposes under federal law. But despite the threat of arrest and prosecution by the feds, farmers in 17 states across the U.S. have waded into the commercial industrial hemp business with the blessing and sanction of their state governments.

California, Colorado, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming all permit licensed growers to produce industrial hemp for commercial purposes.

Connecticut also technically allows commercial hemp farming. In 2015, the state removed hemp from the state’s list of controlled substances. Farmers can grow the crop without any license or state oversight – just like tomatoes or corn. But the state has not created any kind of licensing program.

States that have ignored federal law have produced the most hemp. In 2017, states licensed more than 39,000 acres for hemp production. Of the top-10 hemp producing states, seven of them license commercial growers despite federal prohibition.

Kentucky presents a special case. The commonwealth ranks second in the U.S. behind Colorado in hemp acreage. State officials claim they follow federal law. But state law established “a commercial licensing program” authorizing hemp cultivation for any “legal purpose.” The phrase “legal purpose” technically excludes virtually all commercial production under the DEA’s interpretation of federal law.

Regardless of how the vague the statute reads, it’s clear what’s happening in practice. Kentucky’s hemp program is not federally compliant, no matter how hard state officials try to convince you it is.

Walk into virtually any health food store in the commonwealth, and many major grocery chains, and you will find locally produced edible hemp products on the shelf. The feds claim this is illegal. More than half of Kentucky’s hemp acreage has been cultivated for CBD. The feds claim this is illegal. And yet the state Ag commissioner noted in a letter to the DEA, “such products are already being grown, processed and consumed by Kentuckians every day, In fact, consumable hemp products were legal to buy and use even before the Industrial Hemp Research Pilot Program began in 2014.”

Nobody has gone to jail. The feds haven’t levied any fines. The DEA hasn’t sent in the SWAT team to destroy Kentucky hemp fields. A DEA spokesman even admitted to a Louisville newspaper that the agency is not enforcing the hemp law.

In fact, many of the 16 states that endeavor to run federally compliant, research only hemp programs are likely non-compliant in practice. Any program allowing the sale of CBD oil violates the law as interpreted by the federal bureaucracy.

Federal Response

Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., there is a strong movement to end federal hemp prohibition. On June 13, the Senate Agriculture Committee passed a farm bill including provisions to fully legalize industrial hemp. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell is spearheading the effort.

In reality, the feds are just playing catch-up. With so many states already effectively nullifying prohibition, Congress has little choice but to relent. The federal government simply doesn’t have the personnel and resources to maintain its ban on commercial hemp farming with so many states refusing to cooperate. It also faces growing public opposition its hemp policy.

States led the way with hemp just like they’ve led the way on marijuana. Although the feds haven’t abandoned their failed efforts to enforce marijuana laws, after more than two decades of state, local and individual nullification, their unconstitutional prohibition of cannabis is beginning to come apart at the seams. We’ve even seen dedicated drug warriors including Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner and Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suddenly become outspoken weed advocates – not unlike McConnell’s sudden enthusiasm for legalizing hemp.

When states and individuals lead, the feds eventually follow. Successful hemp markets growing in states that have defied prohibition explode the myth of absolute federal power. As James Madison noted in Federalist #46, “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union” gives us a powerful tool we can use to undermine federal authority. Madison noted that “members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former.” This has proven true. Without state, local and individual cooperation, the federal government cannot enforce all of its laws and regulations, or implement all of its programs.

We can use this strategy to roll back federal overreach – whether the issue is hemp, marijuana, healthcare, gun control or anything else the feds have stuck their noses into, we just need to learn to say, “No!”

Mike Maharrey
June 30, 2018 at 09:22AM

Red Pill Expo, Part 2

Amazing interviews with: Gun Owners of America Founder Larry Pratt The amazing Liberty superstar Jordon Page Brilliantly talented Actor/Poet/Comedian Benny Wills Legal Defenders of Private Property Rights Cavalry Group, Mindy Patterson Champion against Agenda 21, Tom DeWeese Financial & Real Estate Wizard, Russel Gray Absolutely something for EVERYONE! Alternatively you can listen to this edition […]

The post Red Pill Expo, Part 2 appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.

Read the full article at krisannehall.com June 30, 2018 at 06:52AM

Tenth Amendment Center: The Stamp Act: A Constitutional Crisis

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

The Stamp Act was a major source of tension between the British and the colonists in the years leading the start of the War of Independence. The act was part of a broader constitutional crisis between the colonies and England. Echoes of that crisis have reverberated all the way through America’s history until today.

The Stamp Act levied a tax on all legal papers, commercial papers, pamphlets, almanacs, playing cards and dice. Colonists could only obtain the stamped paper from commissioned distributors who were to collect the tax in exchange for the stamp. However, colonists led by ‘The Sons of Liberty,’ used non-cooperation backed by force to prevent the distribution of stamp papers. As a result, very little stamp paper actually was distributed.

Leading up to the Stamp Act, Parliament had already started to overstep its constitutional authority in the colonies by passing ‘The Proclamation of 1763’ which banned any colonist from settling west of the peaks of the Appalachians in an attempt to cut off conflict with the Indians. In effect, the proclamation effectively voided many investments already made in land plots due west.

Next, Parliament passed ‘The Currency Act of 1764’ which banned the colonies from issuing their own currency, a much-needed power in a time were specie was running short. In 1766 Ben Franklin argued the proclamation was unnecessary, saying it would keep the common people impoverished and therefore obliged to sell land for cheaper than its value. He asserted that the shortage of currency would discourage people from working in industries such as trade or produce since investors weren’t risking their money in such things.

These early acts set off the constitutional conflict with the English. The colonists believed Parliament had overstepped its jurisdiction by order of the King’s Charter. Next, Parliament passed ‘The Sugar Act of 1764,’ levying an import tax on molasses enforced by the admiralty courts. The act was initially only loosely enforced until Lord Grenville pushed for more vigorous enforcement in an attempt to solve the English’s lack of money problem. The colonists again asserted that the act was an unconstitutional tax, and that it violated English natural rights by trying the colonist without juries.

In an attempt to stop further taxes, Ben Franklin pleaded with Greenville to create a central banking system to pay for operations in North America (Gutzman, 2010). Of course, we have seen how well that worked out when President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Greenville ultimately disregarded Franklin’s request and went on to pass the Stamp Act with the help of Thomas Whatley who authored the bill.

This act didn’t sit well with the colonist. Sir Isaac Barre, who was one of the few members to oppose the Act in Parliament, expressly predicted that there would be revolt or rioting in the colonies.

The colonists had a good case when they claimed a right to self-govern. The King’s charter made it clear, “I DO………DECLARE AND ORDER THAT MY LOVING SUBJECTS IN AMERICA SHALL FOREVER……ENJOY THE RIGHT TO MAKE ALL NEEDFUL LAWS FOR THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT.”

This charter had gone unchallenged since the settling of Jamestown. It declared the colonists had all the same natural rights as Englishmen and the right to self-government. This was a practical matter as much as anything, considering an ocean lay in-between England and her American colonies.

On June 8, 1765 the Massachusetts House of Representatives called for a Stamp Act Congress. The congress convened October 7-15 of that same year and adopted ‘The Declaration of Rights and Grievances,’ authored by the great statesman John Dickenson. The Declaration asserted it was the natural rights of an Englishmen to only be taxed where they have representation.

John Adams echoed this argument two months later in before Governor Bernard, claiming the act was ‘utterly void’ and was made where they were in no sense represented.

Dickenson also argued that the colonists could not be represented in Parliament. Therefore only the colonial legislatures had the authority to lay taxes. Finally, Dickinson responded to the admiralty courts enforcing the Sugar Act, stating it was an Englishmen’s natural rights to have a trial by jury. Dickenson summed things up declaring these parliamentary measures were “inconvenient, impracticable, and unconstitutional.” (Gutzman, 2010)

The King’s charter served as the foundation for colonial arguments that the Stamp Act was unconstitutional. The charter created two separate sovereign entities, meaning England was the sovereign over its kingdom and the colonies were sovereign over themselves with the right to self-govern as long as they complied with the English constitution. This effectively split power down the middle. In effect, Parliament was to control “kingdom business” – primarily foreign policy and trade – and the colonies would have control over local issues and internal affairs.

Parliament couldn’t make laws over the colonies and the colonies couldn’t make laws that go against the constitution.

However, Stamp Act author Thomas Whatley made justified the act, saying that “national and local legislation cannot logically coexist and the latter would have to yield to the former.” Ironically, in February 1776, John Adams made the same argument but came to the opposite conclusion – the former would have to yield to the latter.

In 1798/99 both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson took Adams’ original stance in their Kentucky Resolutions and Virginia Resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts, arguing that the former would have to yield to the latter. The Honorable John C. Calhoun also used Adams argument in his Fort Hill Speech in 1831, saying the states and the federal government can’t both be sovereign and one would have to yield to other. Calhoun believed that the creature of the states would gobble up the creator if a constitutional remedy was not found.

The second point Whatley made in justifying the Stamp Act was that even though the colonies didn’t have direct representation in Parliament, the elective from Westminster Abbey did not only represent the Abbey but the entire “empire.” Of course, the King’s charter rendered that statement false, which was pointed out by Richard Blackstone. He wrote, “North American colonist were not a part of England and were settled through colonist efforts with the crowns stipulations.”

The stipulations being that they must conform to the constitution.

Efforts to render the act unenforceable in the colonies and growing opposition at home eventually doomed the Stamp Act. Merchants in England called for repeal, which eventually led to the passing of the “Declaratory Act” in March of 1766, declaring the that colonies are all subordinate to the Parliament.

Leading up to this point Thomas Paine made it clear in his famous book “Common Sense” that war was inevitable and it was only a matter a time before it happened. Both the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act were the tipping point for war.

Parliament’s arguments tacitly recognized the fact that the Stamp Act was unconstitutional. Thomas Whatley and the rest of proponents of the act needed a way around the charter by passing the Declaratory Act, which was also unconstitutional.

Opponents in the colonies may not have won the constitutional argument in England, but they were able to free themselves from the act by simply nullifying it through proclamations backed by concrete action preventing its implementation and enforcement.

JP
June 29, 2018 at 11:37AM

Tenth Amendment Center: California Committee Passes Bill to Allow People to Expunge Some Marijuana Charges

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (June 28, 2018) – On Tuesday, a California Senate committee passed a bill that would create a process to expunge or reduce the sentences of people charged under the state’s marijuana laws before recreational cannabis was legalized this year. Passage into law would take another step toward nullifying federal marijuana prohibition in effect in California.

Assm. Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) introduced Assembly Bill 1793 (AB1793) in January. Under the proposed law, the court would automatically reduce or dismiss marijuana convictions pursuant to Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) unless prosecutors successfully challenge the dismissal of charges or sentence reduction.

In November 2016, voters in California approved a ballot measure legalizing marijuana for general use by adults. The law went into effect on Jan. 1. Under the AUMA, any person charged under previous California marijuana laws can petition for the recall or dismissal of a sentence, dismissal and sealing of a conviction, or redesignation of a conviction of an offense for which a lesser offense or no offense would be imposed under new law. Under AB1793, expungement would happen automatically without any petition necessary, effective July1, 2020. The bill creates a process for prosecutors to challenge the automatic dismissal or reduction of charges.

On June 26, the Senate Committee on Public Safety approved AB1793 by a 5-1 vote.

the Assembly passed AB1793 by a 43-28 vote. The Assembly previously approved the measure by a 43-28 vote.

In the past, there has been some opposition to marijuana legalization bills because laws generally leave those previously charged and convicted unprotected. The introduction of AB1793 demonstrates an important strategic point. Passing bills that take a step forward sets the stage, even if they aren’t perfect. Once the door is open, the way is cleared for additional steps. You can’t take the second step before you take the first.

Passage of AB1793 would not only help those with prior marijuana arrests and convictions on their record get a new start, it would also further undermine federal marijuana prohibition. As marijuana becomes more accepted and more states simply ignore the feds, the federal government is less able to enforce its unconstitutional laws.

FEDERAL PROHIBITION

However, all of this is prohibited under the 1970 federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.

Legalization of marijuana in California removed a huge layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the world’s sixth largest economy, something that will be extremely difficult for federal prohibitionists to overcome. FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By legalizing cannabis, California essentially sweeps away the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.

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.

A GROWING MOVEMENT

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. In January, Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a legislative act.

With 32 states allowing cannabis for medical use as well, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.

“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.

Efforts to expand California’s marijuana law demonstrates another important reality. Once a state puts laws in place legalizing marijuana, it tends to eventually expand. As the state tears down some barriers, markets develop and demand expands. That creates pressure to further relax state law. These bills represent more steps forward for patients seeking alternative treatments and a further erosion of unconstitutional federal marijuana prohibition.

WHAT’S NEXT

AB1703 will now move to the Senate Committee on Appropriation where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Mike Maharrey
June 28, 2018 at 10:11AM

Tenth Amendment Center: The Founders on Federal Enforcement

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

Some people believe that all branches of the federal government should fully enforce all federal laws until they’re overturned by a court or repealed by Congress. But the Founders disagreed. In many cases, vehemently.

In response to the hated Stamp Act, Patrick Henry drafted a series of resolutions denouncing the Act and declaring it to be “illegal, unconstitutional and unjust.” The Virginia House of Burgesses passed the resolutions in late May 1765.

An additional resolution foreshadowed nullification by declaring that Virginians were not obliged to obey any tax laws not enacted by their Assembly.

Resolved, That his majesty’s liege people, the inhabitants of this colony, are not bound to yield obedience to any law or ordinance whatsoever designed to impose any taxation whatsoever upon them, other than the laws and ordinances of the general assembly aforesaid.

While this resolution was not passed, it was circulated in a number of prominent newspapers and gave Henry recognition among his contemporaries as “the man who gave the first impulse to the ball of revolution.”

The principles in this resolution took hold in spite of legislative defeat, especially in Boston, where Samuel Adams and the “Loyal Nine” took to the streets. By October of that year, just two weeks before the Act was set to go into effect, John Hancock sent a letter to his London agent, Johnathan Bernard, capturing the spirit of the time.

The people of this country will never suffer themselves to be made slaves of by a submission to the damned act.

While these events happened many years before ratification of the Constitution, the notion that some laws should be rejected or even actively resisted was deeply-rooted in the American tradition.

During the 1788 Hillsborough Convention, North Carolina delegates opposing ratification of the Constitution outnumbered those in favor by about 2-1. Archibald Maclaine was a well-known attorney in the state and a leader in opposition to the Stamp Act years earlier. He argued in favor of ratification and suggested the same kind of resistance as a response to federal overreach. He said,

If Congress should make a law beyond its powers and the spirit of the Constitution, should we not say to Congress, ‘You have no authority to make this law. There are limits beyond which you cannot go. You cannot exceed the power prescribed by the Constitution. You are amenable to us for your conduct. That act is unconstitutional. We will disregard it and punish you for the attempt.’

In the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, federalist Theophilus Parsons made a similar case. He said, “An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance.”

Even Alexander Hamilton, writing in favor of ratification in Federalist #33 said that federal acts outside of the Constitution would not be supreme. Instead, he noted,

These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.

Prominent founders also held the view that some federal acts shouldn’t be enforced at all, even without a court striking them down or a congressional repeal.

Thomas Jefferson put this principle into action during his presidency, saying he had a duty to arrest the execution of the Sedition Act. He explained his actions in an 1804 letter to Abigail Adams:

I discharged every person under punishment or prosecution under the Sedition law, because I considered & now consider that law to be a nullity as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image; and that it was as much my duty to arrest it’s execution in every stage, as it would have been to have rescued from the fiery furnace those who should have been cast into it for refusing to worship their image. [Emphasis added]

Jefferson discussed this further in a letter to Judge Spencer Roane.

…each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.

James Madison made a similar argument in an 1834 letter:

As the Legislative, Executive & Judicial Departments of the U. S. are co-ordinate, and each equally bound to support the Constitution, it follows that each must in the exercise of its functions, be guided by the text of the Constitution according to its own interpretation of it; and consequently, that in the event of irreconcileable interpretations, the prevalence of the one or the other Departmt. must depend on the nature of the case, as receiving its final decision from the one or the other, and passing from that decision into effect, without involving the functions of any other. [Emphasis added]

George Washington put this principle into practice in 1796. That year, the House of Representatives tried to force the president to submit documents that related to the Jay Treaty. Washington wrote a lengthy letter in response. He referred to the House resolution as a “request,” and made the case that the Constitution did indeed “forbid a compliance” with it.

In short, President Washington didn’t wait for the courts to tell him what he could or could not do. He simply made his own determination of constitutionality and acted on it.

Years later, President Andrew Jackson followed the advice of these founders and took the same position in his veto message regarding the Bank of the United States:

The Congress, the Executive and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.

Today, people from all ends of the political spectrum would be wise to heed this advice and to follow the example of the Founders, primarily George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

In short, when making the case for federal enforcement, don’t focus on the fact that something was merely passed by Congress or signed by a president. Instead, start and end with one thing, the Constitution.

As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense (1776), “in America the law is king.” Under the American system, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” Federal acts, laws, rules, regulations or orders to the contrary be damned.

Michael Boldin
June 28, 2018 at 09:15AM

Supreme Court Opinion on California Abortion Notice Law May Have Unintended Consequences

Supreme Court Opinion on California Abortion Notice Law May Have Unintended Consequences By KrisAnne Hall, JD In a case titled NIFLA, ET AL. v. BECERRA, the supreme Court is asked to opine on whether Beccera’s injunction to stop enforcement of California’s FACT Act should be granted or not. California’s FACT Act requires pro-life clinics to […]

The post Supreme Court Opinion on California Abortion Notice Law May Have Unintended Consequences appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.

Read the full article at krisannehall.com June 26, 2018 at 09:05PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Taking on the Establishment: TAC’s 12-Year Anniversary

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

Incredible.

That’s the only way I can describe how I’m feeling right now. Tomorrow, June 25th, we celebrate our 12-Year Anniversary at the TAC!

When I started the Tenth Amendment Center in 2006 as a simple one-person blog, my goal was to reach just a few people about the Constitution and liberty. Here we are – 12 years have flown by – and TAC has had an impact far beyond anything I ever imagined.

Since day one, this has been David vs. Goliath. TAC vs. the establishment. Good guys with almost nothing vs. the bad guys with everything.

Slowly, but surely, we’re still getting the job done.

Even though I’m the type of person who always thinks in big-picture-mode, in 2006 I had no idea where this would lead. While I hoped to start something important, I had no expectations of leading a movement. Or publishing books on the Constitution and nullification. Or releasing a documentary film and two follow up video series. Or producing a silver medallion.  Or having people I’ve never met join as members to support the cause.

We’ve seen more nullification bills introduced and PASSED than at any time in our history.

As my great friend Tom Woods once put it in an interview, TAC ”has done more than anyone in the world to advance the Jeffersonian principle of nullification.”

FOUNDATION

Thomas Jefferson considered the 10th Amendment the “foundation of the Constitution.”

As we’ve spread this message far and wide, we’ve found ourselves increasingly under attack. In recent years, the establishment on both the left and right has gone after us. But whether it’s the SPLC creating an entire page on their site profiling me personally as a leader of the “radical right,” or some top-level Bush-era neocons taking to the pages of the Washington Post to point out how dangerous our work is, it means we’re doing something right. As the saying goes, you’re not catching flak unless you’re over the target!

From cradle to grave, these people fill our heads with fear – fear that liberty is dangerous. We’re taught that without government schools, our children will be dumb. That without government-mandated health insurance, people will die in the streets. That without spying on your every move, your life is at risk.

The odds are always against the good guys. And with these kinds of odds – this is impossible, right? Most thinking people wouldn’t expect us to have a chance.

The bad guys can attack, insult, and propagandize all they want. They can claim that nullification is unconstitutional, or racist, or just for crazies.

Despite this, the Tenth Amendment Center has been able to lead a national movement.

Our annual “State of the Nullification Movement” report shows the foundation for liberty that we’ve been building. We see it as a prospectus, of sorts – like an annual “investors’ report” to show our members and supporters where we’ve gone, and some of the many things we still need to do. I encourage you to read it when you have some time, and please join us as a member if you believe in what we’re doing.

The 2018 edition will be available later this year.

TRUTH

I don’t want to bore you with too many of the details about why I started the Tenth Amendment Center, my transition from far leftie to Tenther and nullifier, or every little step I’ve taken along the way. But, it’s important to note that I started this organization with pie in the sky hopes, and very humble beginnings.

With a low-paying hourly job and almost no money in my pocket, I spent a few bucks and registered tenthamendmentcenter.com on June 25, 2006. The goal? I knew that if I spoke the truth, someone would hear it. Eventually, the truth would help that one person make the world a slightly better place. And then, I’d keep working until I could reach another person, and another.  And another.

You get the drift. One step at a time, one individual at a time for the Constitution and liberty.

It’s not possible to properly thank all the members, supporters, readers, volunteers, bloggers, organizers, interviewers, donors, friends, family – everyone who has done anything and everything over the years – to help us get to where we are. So I’ll keep it brief – thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Every minute volunteered, every hour worked, every dollar donated – it’s all part of a big, long-term strategy to beat back the forces against us, and WIN for the Constitution and liberty.

Years ago, at least ten, a guy named Peter wrote in to encourage me to push on. It’s something I’ll never forget.

“Truth may not be forceful – but it can heal. It can even repair a broken world. Truth poses no threat to anyone save those who rely on untruth as the cornerstone of their foundations. It is time to speak the truth- irrespective of who is listening or even has the ears to hear.”

That sure hit home for me.

With your help, we’ll not only continue to get the job done right now, but we’ll go much further in the years to come. THANK YOU!

Concordia res parvae crescent
(small things grow great by concord)

Michael Boldin, TAC
213.935.0553

Michael Boldin
June 24, 2018 at 06:18AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Government Eyes Are Watching You: We Are All Prisoners of the Surveillance State

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

First broadcast in America 50 years ago, The Prisoner—a dystopian television series described as “James Bond meets George Orwell filtered through Franz Kafka”—confronted societal themes that are still relevant today: the rise of a police state, the freedom of the individual, round-the-clock surveillance, the corruption of government, totalitarianism, weaponization, group think, mass marketing, and the tendency of humankind to meekly accept their lot in life as a prisoner in a prison of their own making.

Perhaps the best visual debate ever on individuality and freedom, The Prisoner (17 episodes in all) centers around a British secret agent who abruptly resigns only to find himself imprisoned and interrogated in a mysterious, self-contained, cosmopolitan, seemingly tranquil retirement community known only as the Village. The Village is an idyllic setting with parks and green fields, recreational activities and even a butler.

While luxurious and resort-like, the Village is a virtual prison disguised as a seaside paradise: its inhabitants have no true freedom, they cannot leave the Village, they are under constant surveillance, their movements are tracked by surveillance drones, and they are stripped of their individuality and identified only by numbers.

The series’ protagonist, played by Patrick McGoohan, is Number Six.

Number Two, the Village administrator, acts as an agent for the unseen and all-powerful Number One, whose identity is not revealed until the final episode.

“I am not a number. I am a free man,” was the mantra chanted on each episode of The Prisoner, which was largely written and directed by McGoohan.

In the opening episode (“The Arrival”), Number Six meets Number Two, who explains to him that he is in The Village because information stored “inside” his head has made him too valuable to be allowed to roam free “outside.”

Throughout the series, Number Six is subjected to interrogation tactics, torture, hallucinogenic drugs, identity theft, mind control, dream manipulation, and various forms of social indoctrination and physical coercion in order to “persuade” him to comply, give up, give in and subjugate himself to the will of the powers-that-be.

Number Six refuses to comply.

In every episode, Number Six resists the Village’s indoctrination methods, struggles to maintain his own identity, and attempts to escape his captors. “I will not make any deals with you,” he pointedly remarks to Number Two. “I’ve resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.”

Yet no matter how far Number Six manages to get in his efforts to escape, it’s never far enough.

Watched by surveillance cameras and other devices, Number Six’s getaways are continuously thwarted by ominous white balloon-like spheres known as “rovers.” Still, he refuses to give up. “Unlike me,” he says to his fellow prisoners, “many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages.”

Number Six’s escapes become a surreal exercise in futility, each episode an unsettling, reoccurring nightmare that builds to the same frustrating denouement: there is no escape.

As journalist Scott Thill concludes for Wired, “Rebellion always comes at a price. During the acclaimed run of The Prisoner, Number Six is tortured, battered and even body-snatched: In the episode ‘Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling,’ his mind is transplanted to another man’s body. Number Six repeatedly escapes The Village only to be returned to it in the end, trapped like an animal, overcome by a restless energy he cannot expend, and betrayed by nearly everyone around him.”

The series is a chilling lesson about how difficult it is to gain one’s freedom in a society in which prison walls are disguised within the trappings of technological and scientific progress, national security and so-called democracy.

As Thill noted when McGoohan died in 2009, “The Prisoner was an allegory of the individual, aiming to find peace and freedom in a dystopia masquerading as a utopia.”

The Prisoner’s Village is also an apt allegory for the American Police State: it gives the illusion of freedom while functioning all the while like a prison: controlled, watchful, inflexible, punitive, deadly and inescapable.

The American Police State, much like The Prisoner’s Village, is a metaphorical panopticon, a circular prison in which the inmates are monitored by a single watchman situated in a central tower. Because the inmates cannot see the watchman, they are unable to tell whether or not they are being watched at any given time and must proceed under the assumption that they are always being watched.

Eighteenth century social theorist Jeremy Bentham envisioned the panopticon prison to be a cheaper and more effective means of “obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example.”

Bentham’s panopticon, in which the prisoners are used as a source of cheap, menial labor, has become a model for the modern surveillance state in which the populace is constantly being watched, controlled and managed by the powers-that-be and funding its existence.

Nowhere to run and nowhere to hide: this is the new mantra of the architects of the police state and their corporate collaborators (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, YouTube, Instagram, etc.).

Government eyes are watching you.

They see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet.

Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.

When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies.

Apart from the obvious dangers posed by a government that feels justified and empowered to spy on its people and use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technology to monitor and control them, we’re approaching a time in which we will be forced to choose between obeying the dictates of the government—i.e., the law, or whatever a government official deems the law to be—and maintaining our individuality, integrity and independence.

When people talk about privacy, they mistakenly assume it protects only that which is hidden behind a wall or under one’s clothing. The courts have fostered this misunderstanding with their constantly shifting delineation of what constitutes an “expectation of privacy.” And technology has furthered muddied the waters.

However, privacy is so much more than what you do or say behind locked doors. It is a way of living one’s life firm in the belief that you are the master of your life, and barring any immediate danger to another person (which is far different from the carefully crafted threats to national security the government uses to justify its actions), it’s no one’s business what you read, what you say, where you go, whom you spend your time with, and how you spend your money.

Unfortunately, George Orwell’s 1984—where “you had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized”—has now become our reality.

We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers.

Consider that on any given day, the average American going about his daily business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

A byproduct of this new age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior.

This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere.

Stingray devices mounted on police cars to warrantlessly track cell phones, Doppler radar devices that can detect human breathing and movement within in a home, license plate readers that can record up to 1800 license plates per minute, sidewalk and “public space” cameras coupled with facial recognition and behavior-sensing technology that lay the groundwork for police “pre-crime” programs, police body cameras that turn police officers into roving surveillance cameras, the internet of things: all of these technologies add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence—especially not when the government can listen in on your phone calls, monitor your driving habits, track your movements, scrutinize your purchases and peer through the walls of your home.

As French philosopher Michel Foucault concluded in his 1975 book Discipline and Punish, “Visibility is a trap.”

This is the electronic concentration camp—the panopticon prison—the Village—in which we are now caged.

It is a prison from which there will be no escape if the government gets it way.

As Glenn Greenwald notes:

“The way things are supposed to work is that we’re supposed to know virtually everything about what [government officials] do: that’s why they’re called public servants. They’re supposed to know virtually nothing about what we do: that’s why we’re called private individuals. This dynamic – the hallmark of a healthy and free society – has been radically reversed. Now, they know everything about what we do, and are constantly building systems to know more. Meanwhile, we know less and less about what they do, as they build walls of secrecy behind which they function. That’s the imbalance that needs to come to an end. No democracy can be healthy and functional if the most consequential acts of those who wield political power are completely unknown to those to whom they are supposed to be accountable.”

Unfortunately, we seem to be trapped in the Village with no hope of escape.

That we are prisoners—and, in fact, never stopped being prisoners—should come as no surprise to those who haven’t been taking the escapist blue pill, who haven’t fallen for the Deep State’s phony rhetoric, and who haven’t been lured in by the promise of a political savior.

So how do we break out?

For starters, wake up. Resist the urge to comply.

The struggle to remain “oneself in a society increasingly obsessed with conformity to mass consumerism,” writes Steven Paul Davies, means that superficiality and image trump truth and the individual. The result is the group mind and the tyranny of mob-think—especially in a day and age when most people are addicted to screen devices controlled and administered by the government and its corporate allies.

Think for yourself. Be an individual. As McGoohan commented in 1968, “At this moment individuals are being drained of their personalities and being brainwashed into slaves… As long as people feel something, that’s the great thing. It’s when they are walking around not thinking and not feeling, that’s tough. When you get a mob like that, you can turn them into the sort of gang that Hitler had.”

In a media-dominated age in which the lines between entertainment, politics and news reporting are blurred, it is extremely difficult to distinguish fact from fiction. We are so bombarded with images, dictates, rules and punishments and stamped with numbers from the day we are born that it is a wonder we ever ponder a concept such as freedom. As McGoohan declared, “Freedom is a myth.”

In the end, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we are all prisoners of our own mind.

In fact, it is in the mind that prisons are created for us. And in the lockdown of political correctness, it becomes extremely difficult to speak or act individually without being ostracized. Thus, so often we are forced to retreat inwardly into our minds, a prison without bars from which we cannot escape, and into the world of video games and television and the Internet.

We have come full circle from Bentham’s Panopticon to McGoohan’s Village to Huxley’s Brave New World.

As cultural theorist Neil Postman observed:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared we would become a captive audience. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared that we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate would ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

You want to be free? Break out of the circle.

John Whitehead
June 23, 2018 at 09:41AM

Red Pill Expo

Today we have a show dedicated to the awakening!  Meet many of the amazing speakers from the Red Pill Expo in Spokane, Washington Alternatively you can listen to “Red Pill Expo by KrisAnne Hall” on YouTube

The post Red Pill Expo appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.

Read the full article at krisannehall.com June 23, 2018 at 08:15AM

Tenth Amendment Center: New Line of Police Drones Will Instantly Upload Video to Massive Database

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

A company that developed a massive database for police body cameras has joined forces with the world’s biggest manufacturer of consumer unmanned aerial vehicles to sell surveillance drones to police departments. The data storage and sharing capabilities along with the development of artificial intelligence (AI) applications create the potential for an invasive surveillance platform that would make Big Brother drool. 

Axon sells police body cameras and Tasers. It also developed a cloud-based data storage system called Evidence.com for police video, audio and other digital information. Axon has teamed up with China-based drone manufacturer DJI to sell a line of drones dubbed “Azon Air.” The video camera-equipped drones can upload data directly to the cloud for instant analysis.

According to Axon, more than 200,000 public safety professionals currently use Evidence.com. The system was originally developed to store and process body camera video, but it has expanded into a large-scale police data storage system. Through Evidence.com, law enforcement agencies can instantly analyze, categorize and share reams of raw data. A company spokesperson told Slate, “all digital data including PDFs, crime scene photos, CCTV footage, in-car cameras, and now DJI drone video can be associated to a single case file.”

Police departments own and maintain control of all the data they upload into the system, but they can easily share information with other agencies. In effect, Evidence.com creates a privately owned, centralized system that state, local and federal law enforcement agencies can all tap into and share information. For example, police in Phoenix could share a video with officers in Boston, or the FBI could access drone footage shot in Montgomery, Ala., all with just a few clicks of a mouse.

As Slate put it, “By combining drone, body-camera, police-car-camera, and closed-circuit-TV footage, Axon is clearly hoping to create a central hub for police to cross-reference and access surveillance data—a treasure chest of information.”

The threat to privacy becomes more acute when you factor in facial recognition and AI technology. According to Slate, Axon CEO Rick Smith recently said his company is actively considering using facial recognition with its camera technology. And as Defense One reports, footage captured by Axon drones could be instantly analyzed by AI systems not revealed to the public.

A paper, titled “Eye in the Sky,” details how drone footage could be used to detect “violent individuals” in real-time.

VIDEO:

But critics question the accuracy of these AI algorithms, according to Defense One:

To train the AI, the researchers flew a drone to snap 2,000 images of people pretending to hurt each other. But since the researchers didn’t use real data, and carefully staged the information the AI analyzed to learn the difference between violence and normal human motion, there’s no guarantee that it would work well in the real world, David Sumpter, author of Outnumbered: Exploring the Algorithms that Control Our Lives, wrote on Medium.

“What the algorithm has done is classify individuals with their hands or legs in the air as violent,” Sumpter wrote. Others, like Google ethics hawk Meredith Whittaker, tweeted that the research was flawed and that “AI is facing a mounting ethical crisis.”

ACLU senior policy analyst Jay Stanley said he was particularly concerned about police being able to surveil wide areas such as outdoor gatherings, neighborhoods or even entire cities.

“It could give police the ability to hit rewind on people’s lives and see anywhere they’ve been,” he said.

The proliferation of surveillance drones instantly linked to massive databases connected to facial recognition and AI technology underscores the need for state and local government to put careful limits on drone surveillance. Police should not be able to deploy drones to gather evidence without a warrant. Additionally, state and local government should put tight limits on data-sharing and storage.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE STATE

According to a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, drones can be equipped with various types of surveillance equipment that can collect high definition video and still images day and night. Drones can be equipped with technology allowing them to intercept cell phone calls, determine GPS locations, and gather license plate information. Drones can be used to determine whether individuals are carrying guns. Synthetic-aperture radar can identify changes in the landscape, such as footprints and tire tracks. Some drones are even equipped with facial recognition. According to research from the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, 347 U.S. police, sheriff, fire, and emergency response units acquired drones between 2009 and early 2017—primarily sheriff’s offices and local police departments.

Much of the funding for drones at the state and local level comes from the federal government, in and of itself a constitutional violation. In return, federal agencies tap into the information gathered by state and local law enforcement through fusion centers and a federal program known as the information sharing environment.

According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators… have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Axons Evidence.com system is almost certainly already integrated into this system.

The federal government encourages and funds a network of drones at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on drone use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.

Currently, 18 states—Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin—require law enforcement agencies in certain circumstances to obtain a search warrant to use drones for surveillance or to conduct a search.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

Mike Maharrey
June 21, 2018 at 07:06AM

Tenth Amendment Center: New Jersey Bills Would Legalize Marijuana; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

TRENTON, N.J. (Jun. 18, 2018) – Two bills filed in the New Jersey Senate would legalize marijuana, setting the foundation to nullify federal cannabis prohibition in effect in the state.

Sen. Nicholas Scutari (D-Union) introduced Senate Bill 2702 (S2702) and Senate Bill 2703 (S2703) on Jun. 7. Both bills would permit adults 21 or older to use, purchase or transport up to one ounce of marijuana. Excise taxes would be phased in over the course of four years up to a 25 percent total. S2702  would also expand medical marijuana regulations in order to create a new designation for institutional caregivers that would allow healthcare professionals to administer medical marijuana to sick patients.

“I think we’ve got lessons that we can learn from other states, even Colorado, which is the head as far as legalization, to replicate something they have instead of reinventing the wheel,” Sen. Scutari said about his push to NJ.com.

According to ASI, analysts say the dual bill approach is a way of covering bases in case lawmakers are hesitant to vote for medical marijuana expansion along with recreational legalization.

Despite the federal prohibition on marijuana, measures such as S2702 and S2703 remain perfectly constitutional, and the feds can do little if anything to stop them in practice.

LEGALITY

Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the feds maintain complete prohibition of cannabis. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.

Legalization of recreational marijuana in New Jersey would remove another layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, but federal prohibition will remain on the books.

FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By mostly ending state prohibition, New Jersey essentially sweeps away most of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.

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.

A GROWING MOVEMENT

Medical marijuana is currently legal in New Jersey. Passage of these bills would further ignore federal prohibition and nullify it in practice in the state. 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. In January, Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a legislative act.

With 30 states allowing cannabis for medical use as well, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.

“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.

NEXT UP

S2702 and S2703 were referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where the bills will need to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Shane Trejo
June 19, 2018 at 10:27AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Federally Infringed: The Gun-Free School Zones Act

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

A popular myth in the national gun debate is that Republicans are rabid Second Amendment supporters, while gun grabbers are strictly confined to the Democrat Party. The unpleasant reality is that members of the Grand Old Party and even conservative “gun rights” organizations have supported unconstitutional federal legislation infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.

Although one could trace this unholy collaboration all the way back in 1934 with the National Firearms Act, a more recent example is the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The 101st Congress had 54 Democrats and 45 Republicans, while the House had 258 Democrats and 177 Republicans. The bill was passed as part of the Crime Control Act of 1990 on a voice vote in the Senate and 313-1 in the House, then signed by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

The law generally prohibits anyone except a law enforcement officer from knowingly having a loaded or unsecured gun within a school zone, defined as an area within 1,000 feet of the school building  – unless on private property. Under the current statute (18 U.S. Code § 921), an individual cannot “knowingly . . . possess[es] a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.”

The language relating to interstate commerce was added after the Supreme Court found the original statute unconstitutional. The additional verbiage had virtually no practical effect since the Court’s definition of interstate commerce includes virtually every firearm ever made.

The prohibition applies whether the school is a private or public institution. The law includes certain exemptions, such as allowing an unloaded firearm on a vehicle gun rack, or for use in an approved school program. The law also allows states and other government agencies to issue licenses to exempt certain people from the policy. This provision had the effect of turning a fundamental right into a privilege bestowed by government.

Enforcement of the law demonstrates just how intrusive it is in practice. In United States v. Nieves-Castaño, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 2007 conviction in which woman kept a firearm in her public housing project apartment within 1,000 feet of a school. Also, the ATF declared that hunters in the town of Stratham, New Hampshire, would be violating the law if they carried firearms on approved public hunting land in a town forest within 1,000 feet of a local school.

The Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 is clearly unconstitutional. “Shall not be infringed” doesn’t include an exception for school zones.

Beyond the constitutional issues, the law doesn’t even deliver as advertised. The legislation was intended to protect schools, but as recent events prove, it has failed to achieve its primary goal. If school shooters are aware of this law, they obviously don’t care, and it is impossible to enforce it against those who violate it unless they do so innocently or unwittingly.

If constitutional, the law might have merit bolstering a case where a criminal has been caught in the act and lives to stand trial, but as a preventative measure meant to discourage school shootings, it is wholly absurd – like most gun control policies. 

TJ Martinell
June 19, 2018 at 10:26AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Why Can’t We Sue the TSA For Assault?

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

by Ron Paul

When I was in Congress and had to regularly fly between DC and Texas, I was routinely subjected to invasive “pat-downs” (physical assaults) by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). One time, exasperated with the constant insults to my privacy and dignity, I asked a TSA agent if he was proud to assault innocent Americans for a living.

I thought of this incident after learning that the TSA has been compiling a “troublesome passengers” list. The list includes those who have engaged in conduct judged to be “offensive and without legal justification” or disruptive of the “safe and effective completion of screening.” Libertarian journalist James Bovard recently pointed out that any woman who pushed a screener’s hands away from her breasts could be accused of disrupting the “safe and effective completion of screening.” Passengers like me who have expressed offense at TSA screeners are likely on the troublesome passengers list.

Perhaps airline passengers should start keeping a list of troublesome TSA agents. The list could include those who forced nursing mothers to drink their own breast milk, those who forced sick passengers to dispose of cough medicine, and those who forced women they found attractive to go through a body scanner multiple times. The list would certainly include the agents who confiscated a wheelchair-bound three-year-old’s beloved stuffed lamb at an airport and threatened to subject her to a pat-down. The girl, who was at the airport with her family to take a trip to Disney World, was filmed crying that she no longer wanted to go to Disney World.

The TSA is effective at violating our liberty, but it is ineffective at protecting our security. Last year, the TSA’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), conducted undercover tests of the TSA’s ability or detect security threats at airports across the country. The results showed the TSA staff and equipment failed to uncover threats 80 percent of the time. This is not the first time the TSA has been revealed to be incompetent. An earlier DHS study fund TSA screenings and even the invasive pat-downs were utterly ineffective at finding hidden weapons.

The TSA’s “security theater” of treating every passenger as a criminal suspect while doing nothing to stop real threats is a rational response to the incentives the TSA faces as a government agency. If the TSA puts up an appearance of diligently working to prevent another 9/11 by inconveniencing and even assaulting as many travelers as possible, Congress will assume the agency is doing its job and keep increasing the TSA’s budget. Because the TSA gets its revenue from Congress, not from airline passengers, the agency has no reason to concern itself with customer satisfaction and feels free to harass and assault people, as well as to make lists of people who stand up for their rights.

Congress should end the TSA’s monopoly on security by abolishing the agency and returning responsibility for security to the airlines. The airline companies can contract with private firms that provide real security without treating every passenger as a criminal suspect. A private security firm that assaults its customers while failing to detect real dangers would soon go out of business, whereas the TSA would likely have its budget and power increased if there was another attack on the US.

If shutting down the TSA is too “radical” a step, Congress should at least allow individuals to sue TSA agents for assault. Anyone who has suffered unfair treatment by the TSA as a result of being put on the “troublesome passengers” list should also be able to seek redress in court. Making TSA agents subject to the rule of law is an important step toward protecting our liberty and security.

Copyright © 2018 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Tenth Amendment Center
June 19, 2018 at 09:07AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Party Politics? Political Personalities? That’s Not Our Thing

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center
One of the things that I love about the TAC is that it focuses all of its work advancing principles, not a party or personality. If you haven’t seen our video “Sticking to our Principles Whether They’re Popular or Not,” you should definitely check it out. It’s always interesting to me how political orientation colors people’s perception…
Mike Maharrey
June 18, 2018 at 09:24AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Now In Effect: Michigan Bans “Material Support or Resources” for Warrantless Federal Surveillance

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

LANSING, Mich. (June 17, 2018) – A new law banning “material support or resources” for warrantless federal surveillance programs went into effect in Michigan. This is an essential step every state needs to take at a time when the federal government seems unlikely to ever end unconstitutional spying on its own.

Rep. Martin Howrylak (R-Troy) introduced House Bill 4430 (HB4430) last spring. The new law prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from assisting, participating with, or providing “material support or resources, to a federal agency to enable it to collect, or to facilitate in the collection or use of a person’s electronic data” unless one of five conditions apply:

(a) The person has given informed consent.
(b) The action is pursuant to a warrant that is based upon probable cause and particularly describes the person, place, or thing to be searched or seized.
(c) The action is in accordance with a legally recognized exception to warrant requirements.
(d) The action will not infringe on any reasonable expectation of privacy the person may have.
(e) This state or a political subdivision of this state collected the electronic data or metadata legally.

The House approved the final version of HB4430 108-1. The Senate passed the measure 37-0. With Gov. Snyder’s signature, the new law went into effect at midnight June 17.

“This reform safeguards the fundamental rights of all Michigan residents, who are guaranteed protection of their property and privacy rights by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,“ Howrylak said. “Michigan will not assist the federal government with any data collection unless it is consistent with the Constitution.”

Michigan is the second state to take action to prohibit support for warrantless federal surveillance. In 2014, California took a smaller first step when Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill banning the state from participating in, or providing material support or resources to any federal agency engaged in the “illegal and unconstitutional collection of electronic data or metadata.” The California law needs additional steps for effectuation by defining specifically what actions constitute “illegal and unconstitutional.”  Passage of HB4430 in Michigan goes further by prohibiting specific state actions and gives the movement to stop unconstitutional federal surveillance more momentum

FISA REAUTHORIZATION

Despite concerns about warrantless surveillance in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations, Congress has done nothing to rein in NSA spying. In January, Congress reauthorized the FISA Sec. 702.

As Andrew Napolitano explained, “the FISA-created process permits a secret court in Washington to issue general warrants based on the government’s need to gather intelligence about national security from foreigners among us. It pretends that the standard is probable cause of foreign agency, but this has now morphed into the issuance of general warrants whenever the government wants them.” A typical FISA warrant authorizes government surveillance on all landlines, mobile devices and desktop computers in a given area. While the process was created to monitor foreign agents, it sweeps up reams of data belonging to Americans.

Before approving a six-year extension of Section 702, the House voted to kill an amendment that would have overhauled the surveillance program and addressed some privacy concerns. Provisions in the amendment would have required agents to get warrants in most cases before hunting for and reading Americans’ emails and other messages that get swept up under the program.

Just one day after Trump signed the extension into law, news came out about the infamous FISA memo. This memo was available to members of the House Intelligence Committee prior to the vote to reauthorize FISA. None of this information was made available to Congress at large. Most telling, every single Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee voted to reauthorize Sec. 702, and in a heartwarming show of bipartisanship, six of the nine Democratic representatives on the committee joined their colleagues.

This is yet another indication we can’t count on Congress to limit its spy-programs.

PRACTICAL EFFECT

The feds share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a program known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, these partnerships facilitate federal efforts to track the movements of, and obtain and store information on, millions of Americans. This includes monitoring phone calls, emails, web browsing history and text messages, all with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.

According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators… have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.

Because the federal government relies heavily on partnerships and information sharing with state and local law enforcement agencies, passage of HB4430 potentially hinders warrantless surveillance in the state. For instance, if the feds wanted to engage in mass surveillance on specific groups or political organizations in Michigan, it will now have to proceed without state or local assistance. This will likely prove problematic.

State and local law enforcement agencies regularly provide surveillance data to the federal government through ISE and Fusion Centers. They collect and store information from cell-site simulators (AKA “stingrays”), automated license plate readers (ALPRs), drones, facial recognition systems, and even “smart” or “advanced” power meters in homes.

Passage of HB4430 sets the stage to end this sharing of warrantless information with the federal government. It would also prohibit state and local agencies from actively assisting in warrantless surveillance operations.

By including a prohibition on participation in the illegal collection and use of electronic data and metadata by the state, HB4430 will also prohibit what NSA former Chief Technical Director William Binney called the country’s “greatest threat since the Civil War.”

The bill bans the state from obtaining or making use of electronic data or metadata obtained by the NSA without a warrant.

Reuters revealed the extent of such NSA data sharing with state and local law enforcement in an August 2013 article. According to documents obtained by the news agency, the NSA passes information to police through a formerly secret DEA unit known Special Operations Divisions and the cases “rarely involve national security issues.” Almost all of the information involves regular criminal investigations, not terror-related investigations.

In other words, not only does the NSA collect and store this data. using it to build profiles, the agency encourages state and local law enforcement to violate the Fourth Amendment by making use of this information in their day-to-day investigations.

This is “the most threatening situation to our constitutional republic since the Civil War,” Binney said.

NSA FACILITIES

The original definition of “material support or resources” included providing tangible support such as money, goods, and materials and also less concrete support, such as “personnel” and “training.” Section 805 of the PATRIOT Act expanded the definition to include “expert advice or assistance.”

Practically-speaking, the legislation will almost certainly stop the NSA from ever setting up a new facility in Michigan.

In 2006, the agency maxed out the Baltimore-area power grid, creating the potential, as the Baltimore Sun reported, for a “virtual shutdown of the agency.” Since then, the NSA aggressively expanded in states like Utah, Texas, Georgia and elsewhere, generally focusing on locations that can provide cheap and plentiful resources like water and power.

For instance, analysts estimate the NSA data storage facility in Bluffdale, Utah, will use 46 million gallons of water every day to cool its massive computers. The city supplies this water based on a contract it entered into with the spy agency. The state could turn off the water by voiding the contract or refusing to renew it. No water would effectively mean no NSA facility.

What will stop the NSA from expanding in other states? Bills like HB4430. By passing this legislation, Michigan becomes much less attractive for the NSA because it will not be able to access state or local water or power supplies. If enough states step up and pass the Fourth Amendment Protection Act, we can literally box them in and shut them down.

LEGAL BASIS

HB4430 rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

“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.”

Mike Maharrey
June 17, 2018 at 02:10PM