Tenth Amendment Center: Today in History: The Boston Massacre, a Pivotal Step on the Road to Independence.

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

Today in history, Mar. 5, 1770, a violent incident unfolded on Boston’s King Street, where an agitated group of colonists swarmed around a group of British regulars. This came to be known as the “Boston Massacre.”

After a group of Bostonians uttered insults, threw snowballs, and dared the British to fire, several soldiers ultimately fired into the crowd. While some colonists alleged that Captain Preston commanded ordered the soldiers to fire into the group, the soldiers claimed the action was taken upon a misinterpretation of Preston’s order not to fire.

Five Bostonians died, and six were seriously wounded, including a young boy. This incident did much to exacerbate tensions between the colonists and the crown. Firebrands such as Samuel Adams and Paul Revere quickly branded the incident the “Boston Massacre,” and worked quickly to depict the even as an egregious assault against a peaceable people. In the court of public opinion, public unrest toward the British grew to an all-time high.

Future President John Adams accepted the case of Captain Preston and the British soldiers, providing a legal defense for the men in the face of murder charges. Adams believed the judgment of death for the soldiers would be intolerable, and hoped to prevent London from perceiving Bostonians as a lawless group of ruffians. Their rights as Englishmen, Adams thought, would be more likely to persist if the colonies did not resort to arbitrary punishments and violent reactions. At this point, Adams hoped to preserve good faith between the colonies and their mother country. While two soldiers were convicted of manslaughter (and branded on their hands), six were acquitted entirely.

Prior to the event, friction between the colonies and the crown were already apparent. In 1768, the Townshend Acts imposed taxes upon the colonies, which sparked widespread objections. In response to colonial indignation and obstruction of the taxes, Britain sent soldiers in hopes of assisting with the enforcement of the acts and to keep the peace – giving the appearance of a standing army, a hostile action under the British tradition. Boston’s most notorious Whig politicians saw things much differently – they declared the taxes contrary to England’s constitutional system, and believed the presence of British forces was indicative of a coercive attempt to establish forcible rule over the colonies.

Meanwhile, Paul Revere and Sam Adams stirred agitation by depicting the event as a slaughter. Viewing the acquittals as a severe injustice, they responded accordingly with a propaganda campaign that portrayed the event as a massacre. Additionally, they used the episode to initiate a boycott of British goods, which the two rallied support for over the coming months.

Many consider those who died in Boston became the first martyrs of the patriot cause and set the stage for future conflict between the colonies and Britain. Whatever one thinks about the culpability of this incident, it was an incredibly important event that turned colonial sentiment against the British crown. In many ways, it was a pivotal step on the road to independence.\

Dave Benner
March 05, 2018 at 11:19AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Missouri Bill Would Limit ALPR Data, First Step to Block National License Plate Tracking Program

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (March 5, 2018) –  A bill introduced in the Missouri Senate would limit the storage and sharing of information collected using Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in the state. Passage into law would also place significant roadblocks in the way of a federal program using states to help track the location of millions of everyday people through pictures of their license plates.

Sen. Caleb Rowden (R-Columbia) introduced Senate Bill 1087 (SB1087) on March 1. The legislation would restrict the storage and sharing of data collected by ALPRs. Under the proposed law, any information collected by an ALPR system would have to be destroyed after 1 year unless there was a judicially issued preservation order. SB1087 would also put tight restrictions on who could access ALPR data.

“In the case of a law enforcement entity’s system, criminal investigators and analysts and automated license plate reader system auditors; or

“In the case of the state highways and transportation commission’s system, state department of transportation personnel as expressly delegated by the state highways and transportation commission.”

All other law enforcement officers would be barred from accessing ALPR data after 30 days.

SB1087 includes a blanket ban on sharing data with federal agencies.

“No government entity shall allow a transfer of such agency’s captured plate data to a branch, department, or agency of the federal government, except as expressly provided by law.”

Any evidence handled in violation of the law would not be admissible in court.

“Captured plate data and evidence derived from it shall not be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state or a political subdivision of the state if the disclosure of that information would violate this section.”

Passage of SB1087 would prevent the state from creating permanent databases using information collected by ALPRs and would make it less likely that such data would end up in federal databases.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

The ACLU estimates that less than 0.2 percent of plate scans are linked to criminal activity or vehicle registration issues.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the federal government, via the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) tracks the location of millions of vehicles. They’ve engaged in this for nearly a decade, all without a warrant, or even public notice of the policy.

State and local law enforcement agencies operate most of these tracking systems, often paid for by federal grant money. The DEA then taps into the local database to track the whereabouts of millions of people – for the simple act of driving – without having to operate a huge network itself.

Since a majority of federal license plate tracking data comes from state and local law enforcement, passage of this legislation would take a major step toward blocking that program from continuing in Missouri. The feds can’t access data that doesn’t exist or that they are specifically barred from having.

“No data means no federal license plate tracking program,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.

Law enforcement generally configures ALPRs to store the photograph, the license plate number, and the date, time, and location of vehicles. But according to newly disclosed records obtained by the ACLU via a Freedom of Information Act request, the DEA also captures photographs of drivers and their passengers.

According to the ACLU:

“One internal 2009 DEA communication stated clearly that the license plate program can provide “the requester” with images that “may include vehicle license plate numbers (front and/or rear), photos of visible vehicle occupants [redacted] and a front and rear overall view of the vehicle.” Clearly showing that occupant photos are not an occasional, accidental byproduct of the technology, but one that is intentionally being cultivated, a 2011 email states that the DEA’s system has the ability to store “up to 10 photos per vehicle transaction including 4 occupant photos.”

With the FBI rolling out facial a nationwide recognition program, and the federal government building biometric databases, the fact that the feds can potentially access stored photographs of drivers and passengers, along with detailed location data, magnifies the privacy concerns surrounding ALPRs.

Passage of SB1087 would represent a good first step toward putting a big dent in federal plans to continue location tracking and expanding its facial recognition program. The less data the state makes available to the federal government, the less ability they have to track people in Missouri, and elsewhere.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1087 will need to be referred to a committee and then pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Mike Maharrey
March 05, 2018 at 11:14AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Permission Not Required: Constitutional Carry Bill up for Consideration in Louisiana

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

BATON ROUGE, La. (March 5, 2018) –  A so-called  “Constitutional Carry” bill prefiled in the Louisiana House would make it legal for state residents 21 and over to carry a firearm without a license. Passage of the bill would also foster an environment hostile to federal gun control.

Rep. Barry Ivey (R-Baton Rouge) prefiled House Bill 412 (HB412) on March 1. Under the proposed law, any Louisiana resident age 21 or over not prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law could carry a concealed firearm without a license

Under HB412, state residents would still be able to obtain a license in order to legally carry concealed in states that have conceal carry permit reciprocity with Louisiana.

While constitutional carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, 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. 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.”

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.

State actions like passage of HB412 would lower barriers for those wanting to the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.

“Constitutional carry is a big step toward being able to exercise a natural right that has been infringed at all levels for far too long,” ShallNot.org campaign lead Scott Landreth said.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB412 will be officially introduced after the regular session convenes on March 12. The bill will be referred to the House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee where it will have to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

 

Mike Maharrey
March 05, 2018 at 11:12AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Minnesota Bill Would Expand Health Freedom

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

ST. PAUL, Minn. (March 4, 2018) – A bill introduced in the Minnesota Senate would help facilitate healthcare freedom outside of government regulatory schemes.

A coalition of four Republican senators introduced Senate Bill 2723 (SF2723) on Feb. 26. The legislation specifies that direct primary care agreements (sometimes called medical retainer agreements) do not constitute insurance, thereby freeing doctors and patients from the onerous requirements and regulations under the state insurance code. The bill also stipulates that “a health care provider or agent of a health care provider is not required to obtain a certificate of authority or license under this chapter or chapter 60A, 62C, 62D, or 62N to market, sell, or offer to sell a direct primary care service arrangement that meets the requirements of this subdivision.”

SF2723 also includes provisions defining direct primary care agreements and establishing modest requirements.

According to Michigan Capitol Confidential, by removing a third party payer from the equation, medical retainer agreements help both physicians and patients minimize costs. Jack Spencer writes:

“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.”

This represents the kind of cost control Obamacare promised but failed to deliver. In 2015, Tom Woods interviewed a Kansas doctor 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.

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.

A FIRST STEP

At this point, it doesn’t look like Republicans will repeal or even reform Obamacare, and the changes to the ACA proposed by the GOP would have arguably made things worse. Even with the penalty for not buying health insurance repealed by the Republican tax plan, all other Obamacare rules and regulations remain in place. Regardless, state actions can help completely bring down the Affordable Care Act, or any national healthcare plan the Congress comes up with in the future.

Oftentimes, supporters of Obamacare criticize opponents for not having any alternative. Direct primary care offers one.

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 price 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.

By incentivizing creative healthcare solutions, the market will naturally provide better options, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, This facility operates completely outside of the insurance system, providing a low-cost alternative for many surgical procedures.

A more open healthcare marketplace within a state will help spur de facto nullification 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.

Passage of SF2723 would take the first step toward healthcare freedom in Minnesota and would create a stepping stone to further action to nullify the onerous Affordable Care act. Once in place, Minnesotans could take further steps to fully extricate themselves from Obamacare for good.

For more information on a plan to nullify the PPACA, click HERE.

WHAT’S NEXT

SF2723 was referred to the Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Finance and Policy Committee where it will have to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Mike Maharrey
March 04, 2018 at 08:39AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Today in History: James Madison’s Veto of Infrastructure Spending in the Bonus Bill of 1817

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

On Mar. 1817, President James Madison vetoed the Bonus Bill of 1817 – a plan that called for the federal construction of various roads, bridges, and canals throughout the country. In a letter to Congress, the president explained his rationale. Out of all historical writings on constitutional interpretation, I believe it stands today as one of the most important.

Madison’s reasoning was simple – although he personally favored the idea of infrastructure construction, writing that he was “not unaware of the great importance” of such things, he denied the policy’s constitutionality on a federal level. Instead of upholding his own personal proclivities and allowing the Constitution to be undermined, he maintained that the Constitution was one of specific enumerated powers, and the document contained no expressed power for the federal government to do such a thing. “The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution,” he said, “and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.”

According to Madison, using the Commerce Clause, General Welfare Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause as justification for the law “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,” adding that an alternative view “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.” Madison was well aware of this fact, as his original proposal for government in the Philadelphia Convention, a set of resolutions known as the “Virginia Plan,” called for a general legislative power rather than a limited array of enumerated powers. By the end of the convention, however, the delegations settled on specific list of powers instead of the plenary alternative.

Believing that the power to build the infrastructure the bill called for “can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents,” Madison insisted that the federal construction infrastructure would necessitate the addition of a constitutional amendment that allowed for the authority. “I have no option but to withhold my signature from it” until such a time, he wrote.

In retrospect, this juncture demonstrates the extent to which the federal government has abandoned the Constitution, making it effectively dead. To come to the same position as Madison on the federal construction of roads in the contemporary would brand one a lunatic or an apostate. This is despite the fact that such an opinion would align exactly with the so-called “Father of the Constitution.”

Dave Benner
March 03, 2018 at 01:34PM

Is Communism Coming to America?

Get PDF As former military Russian linguists we have personal experience studying and working with Russians who lived through the communist regime.  Let’s compare their experiences with what we see happening in America today.  This is a very eerie and hopefully eye opening comparison. Alternatively you can listen to “Is Communism Coming to America?” by […]

The post Is Communism Coming to America? appeared first on KrisAnne Hall.

Read the full article at krisannehall.com March 03, 2018 at 08:13AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Michigan Passes Bill to Ban “Material Support or Resources” for Warrantless Federal Surveillance

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

LANSING, Mich. (March 2, 2018) – Yesterday, the Michigan House gave final approval to a bill that would ban “material support or resources” for warrantless federal surveillance programs. This represents an essential step states need 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 legislation would prohibit 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.

On Thursday, the House approved the final version of HB4430 108-1, sending it to Gov. Rick Snyder’s desk. Earlier this week, the Senate passed the measure 37-0.

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 could potentially hinder 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 would have to proceed without state or local assistance. That would 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 could set 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 would also prohibit what NSA former Chief Technical Director William Binney called the country’s “greatest threat since the Civil War.”

The bill would ban 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 would 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 would become much less attractive for the NSA because it would 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 four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US 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.”

WHAT’S NEXT

Gov. Snyder has 14 days from the date of transmittal to his desk to sign or veto HB4430. If he takes no action, it will become law without his signature. If you live in Michigan, contact the governor at 517-373-3400 and urge him to sign the Fourth Amendment Protection Act into Law.

Mike Maharrey
March 02, 2018 at 02:54PM