Tenth Amendment Center: California Committee Passes Bill to Help End Unchecked Police Surveillance, Establish More Local Control

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (April 4, 2018) –  On Tuesday, a California Senate committee passed a bill that would increase oversight and transparency of law enforcement surveillance technology. Passage of the bill would take the first step toward limiting the unchecked use of surveillance technologies that violate basic privacy rights and feed into a broader national surveillance state.

Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) introduced Senate Bill 1186 (SB1186) on Feb. 15. The legislation would require law enforcement agencies to draft a Surveillance Use Policy for each type of surveillance technology it operates and the information collected. It would then have to submit the policy to its governing body for approval at a regularly scheduled hearing, open to the public. If the plan is not adopted, the law enforcement agency would be required to cease using all surveillance technology within 30 days. The proposed law would require law enforcement agencies to amend their use policies for any new surveillance technology they acquire in the future, subject to the same approval requirements. Without approval, the agency could not use the new technology. 

SB1186 would establish separate procedures for a sheriff’s department or a district attorney to establish their own Surveillance Use Policies since they are elected officials.The procedures would include holding a noticed public hearing on the proposed policy, posting the policy on the department’s Internet Web site, amending the policy to include new types of surveillance technology, and publishing a biennial report regarding the department’s use of surveillance technology, as specified.

The bill also would establish procedures for the Department of the California Highway Patrol and the Department of Justice to establish their own Surveillance Use Policies.

The Senate Public Safety Committee approved SB1186 by a 5-1 vote.

The bill passed committee despite intense law enforcement opposition. Numerous law enforcement lobbying organizations officially opposed the measure, including the California Sheriff’s Association, LA sheriffs, Riverside sheriffs and the California Peace officers Association.

A similar measure was put on what is likely a permanent hold after passing the Senate by a 21-15 margin last year. Significant opposition from law enforcement interests throughout the process was almost certainly a factor in stalling SB21.

A spokesperson for the California Sheriffs Association testified in opposition to SB1186 at the committee hearing. The organization opposed SB21 because it included sheriffs offices under the requirement for local government approval. An exception was included in SB1186. The Sheriffs Association representative specifically acknowledged that the new bill exempted sheriffs’ offices, along with DAs, from the requirement just like they wanted. “Nonetheless,” he said the Sheriffs Association is “still opposed…” This time, the organization argues that the mere existence of a surveillance policy teaches criminals how they’ll be watched. He called surveillance oversight “a roadmap” for criminals.

This fits a pattern we see nationwide. Law enforcement lobbies almost always come up with reasons to oppose any restrictions on surveillance. When legislators address their concerns, police lobbyists come up with new objections.

On the other side of the coin, the ACLU came out neutral on SB1186 because sheriffs and DAs were exempted from the local government approval requirement. They asked for an amendment to include these entities, as they were in the original version of SB21.

Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson sits on the Public Safety Committee. She served as a state prosecutor and supports SB1186.

“Unless we know what law enforcement is doing, how do we know if what they’re doing is appropriate?” she asked during the hearing.

Access

Local police have access to a mind-boggling array of surveillance equipment. As it now stands, many law enforcement agencies can obtain this high-tech, extremely intrusive technology without any approval or oversight. The federal government often provides grants and other funding sources for this spy-gear, meaning local governments can keep their purchase “off the books.” Members of the community, and even elected officials, often don’t know their police departments possess technology capable of sweeping up electronic data, phone calls and location information.

In some cases, the feds even require law enforcement agencies to sign non-disclosure agreements, wrapping surveillance programs in an even darker shroud of secrecy. We know for a fact the FBI required the Baltimore Police Department to sign such an agreement when it obtained stingray technology. This policy of nondisclosure even extends to the courtroom, with the feds actually instructing prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions about the department’s use of stingray devices on the stand during a trial, citing a federal nondisclosure agreement.

As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”

SB1186 would prevent local police in California from obtaining technology without public knowledge, and would provide an avenue for concerned residents to oppose and stop the purchase of spy gear.

Impact on Federal Programs

Information collected by local law enforcement undoubtedly ends up in federal databases. The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, local data collection using ALPRs, stingrays and other technologies create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans, and obtain and store information on millions of Americans, including 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.

The federal government encourages and funds surveillance technology including ALPRs, drones and stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S. In return, it undoubtedly gains access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By requiring approval and placing the acquisition of spy gear in the public spotlight, local governments can take the first step toward limiting the surveillance state at both the local and national level.

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.

SB1186 takes an important first step toward limiting the use of surveillance technology by addressing it at the local level.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB1186 now moves to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it will need to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Mike Maharrey
April 04, 2018 at 11:02AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Economic Storm Clouds Gather, but Movement to End the Fed Provides Hope

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

by Ron Paul

The Federal Reserve recently increased interest rates to 1.75 percent. This is the highest interest rates have been since 2008, but it still leaves rates at historic lows. While the Fed says economic growth justifies future rate increases, an honest examination of the economy suggests that future rate increases are unlikely.

The Fed’s claim that the economy is strong is based on misleading government statistics. For example, the official unemployment rate understates true unemployment by not counting those who have given up looking for work. According to John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics, the real unemployment rate is above 20 percent. Government figures also understate the rate of inflation by pretending that you are not negatively impacted by inflation if you can still buy hamburger when you cannot afford steak. Shadow Stats estimates that the real rate of inflation is as much as four times higher than the official rate.

President Trump’s tariffs will further weaken the economy. While export-driven industries, including manufacturers that rely on imported materials, will be particularly hard-hit, the tariffs combined with the inevitable retaliation from other counties will impact all sectors of the economy. A global trade war could also lead other countries to stop buying US debt instruments, increasing pressure on the Fed to keep rates low.

Since Republicans have held control of the White House and Congress over the last year, federal spending has increased 12.9 percent. Clearly those in Congress serious about reducing government spending are few and far between. The sad fact is that both major parties are happy to increase welfare and warfare spending, although many Republicans pretend to oppose deficits when a Democrat sits in the White House. This puts tremendous pressure on the Fed to keep rates low so as not to increase the federal government’s already high interest payments.

This cannot last forever. Eventually the combination of a spendthrift Congress and a print-happy central bank will cause a major economic crisis. This crisis will herald the end of the welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system that sustains it. The only question is whether the existing system will be replaced by a free market and limited constitutional government or we will complete our descent into totalitarianism.

Fortunately, more Americans are becoming aware of the freedom philosophy and demanding that government roll back the welfare-warfare state and rein in the Fed. Many are also demanding protection of their right to opt out — not just from government programs like Obamacare but also from the Federal Reserve System. For example, Wyoming recently joined Arizona in passing a law recognizing gold and silver as legal tender. Citizens of these states are now able to protect themselves from the coming dollar crisis by using what has historically been considered real money.

At the federal level, the movement to audit the Fed remains strong. As the failures of Keynesianism become more apparent, the movement to audit and end the Fed will grow in size and strength. Hopefully this movement will ensure the end of the welfare-warfare state and the fiat currency system as well as lead to a new era of liberty.

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
April 03, 2018 at 01:58PM

Tenth Amendment Center: South Carolina Committee Passes Bill to Legalize Medical Marijuana; Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

COLUMBIA, S.C. (April 3, 2018) – Last week, a South Carolina Senate committee passed a bill that would legalize medical marijuana for qualifying patients in the state, setting the foundation to nullify unconstitutional federal cannabis prohibition in practice.

A coalition of four Democrats and two Republicans introduced Senate Bill 212 (S212) on Jan 10. The legislation would authorize the use of cannabis by patients suffering from an extensive list of “debilitating medical conditions.” The bill would also set up a regulatory scheme authorizing doctors to recommend medical marijuana,for issuing cards to qualified patients, for establishing dispensaries and for regulating marijuana cultivation in the state.

Last Thursday, the Senate Committee on Medical Affairs passed the bill out with a favorable report.

Despite the federal prohibition on marijuana, measures such as S212 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 federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.

Legalization of medical marijuana in South Carolina would remove one 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 curtailing state prohibition, South Carolina could sweep away some of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.

Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly annual budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution either. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.

A GROWING MOVEMENT

South Carolina could join a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice. 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 29 states including New Hampshire allowing cannabis for medical use, 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.

WHAT’S NEXT

S212 will now move to the Senate floor for further consideration.

Mike Maharrey
April 03, 2018 at 10:28AM

Tenth Amendment Center: New Jersey Bill Would Phase Out Mercury Vaccines; Reject Federal Narrative

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

TRENTON, N.J. (April 2, 2018) – A bill introduced in the New Jersey House would phase out vaccines containing mercury and push back against federal narratives on vaccinations.

Representative Valerie Huttle (D-37) introduced Assembly Bill 3569 (A3569) on March 12. The legislation would phase out the use of vaccines that contain mercury over a three-year period.

Under the proposed law, beginning January 1, 2019, health care providers would be prohibited from administering an influenza vaccine that contains more than 0.5 micrograms of mercury per 0.25 milliliter dose for children under three years of age, and 1.0 microgram of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose for persons over three years of age, along with any other vaccine that contains more than a trace amount of mercury. Beginning January 1, 2020, health care providers would be prohibited from administering vaccines that contain more than a trace amount of mercury. Beginning January 1, 2021, health care providers would be entirely prohibited from administering vaccines containing mercury.

A3569 provides for an exception for instances in which the New Jersey Commissioner of Health determines that vaccines containing a higher level of mercury than provided for in the bill are necessary to prevent or respond to an outbreak of disease or that there are insufficient amounts of these vaccines to adequately protect the public health.

The bill would also require those receiving a vaccine containing more than a trace amount of mercury be informed in advance that the vaccine contains mercury.

EFFECT ON FEDERAL POLICY

Passage this bill would push back against federal narratives on vaccinations and make it more difficult for the feds to enforce federal vaccine mandates in the future. The bill sets the stage to nullify potential vaccine mandates, which generally have their basis in federal recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although such recommendations are not binding, they can influence policy-makers at the local and state levels to adopt coercive vaccine mandates.

The CDC makes vaccine recommendations in an environment fraught with conflicts of interest. The CDC relies heavily upon research sponsored by the vaccine industry, the very industry that will profit enormously from vaccines being recommended and used. Vaccines are a “cash cow” for the pharmaceutical industry because, unlike with other products sold by the industry, manufacturers are shielded from liability for harm caused by vaccines. This is due to legal protections put in place as a result of extensive lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry. The usual product liability rules applicable to manufacturers of other products do not apply to vaccines. Claims of harm caused by vaccines are heard by a special federal vaccine court and any compensation granted by the court is paid by the public, through a surcharge on vaccines, and not paid by the vaccine manufacturer.

Further, a revolving door exists between the vaccine industry and the CDC, with many members of the federal agency taking lucrative jobs with the vaccine industry after leaving the CDC, and vice versa. An example of this is Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Center for Disease Control from 2002 to 2009. She accepted a highly paid position as president of Merck’s vaccine division only about a year after leaving the CDC.

Under the current system, which is heavily influenced by those who profit from vaccine sales, the number of vaccine doses recommended by the CDC for children is steadily rising.  According to information contained on the website of the National Vaccine Information Center [1] (NVIC), a non-profit educational organization, in 1983 the CDC recommended 23 doses of 7 vaccines between the age of two months and age six and, by 2013, it recommended 50 doses of 14 vaccines between birth and age six and 69 doses of 16 vaccines from birth through age 18. [2]  Furthermore, the CDC now recommends an adult vaccine schedule, [3] with an increasing number of doses being added to the schedule.

With a strong conflict of interest influencing the federal government’s vaccine recommendations, it is critical that states have the power to reject federal vaccine mandates.

Furthermore, there are reasons to question vaccine safety.  Although the ingredients in each type of vaccine differ, generally, vaccines contain a myriad of toxic substances. These can include, among others, ethyl mercury (found in vaccines in the form of the preservative thimerosal), aluminum, and formaldehyde.  According to the article “Mercury is Not Safe in Any Form:  Debunking the Myths About Thimerosal ‘Safety’” by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., no amount of mercury is safe for humans and, although thimerosal has been removed from most childhood vaccines, or thimerosal-free versions of the vaccines exist, thimerosal remains in approximately one third to one half of the influenza vaccine doses administered to pregnant women and infants. [4] Mr. Kennedy is Chairman of the Board of the World Mercury Project and its website contains information concerning the potential dangers of thimerosal. [5] NVIC is another a source of information concerning the potential dangers of toxins found in vaccines. [6] The book Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies:  400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers by Neil Z. Miller reviews concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy raised by 400 peer-reviewed published studies and also contains useful information regarding the potential risks of vaccines. [7]

There is no consensus in the scientific community about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines or the necessity for them. Accordingly, states must resist federal vaccine mandates. 

As we have seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states enact contradictory policies. If multiple states ban mandatory vaccinations, it will become extremely difficult for the federal government to enforce any kind of future federal mandate. State action banning these vaccines will also undermine the federal narrative. This will make it harder for the feds to generate support for nationwide vaccine policies.

By passing A3569, New Jersey has the opportunity to lead on this important issue and to become the potential standard bearer for resisting federal vaccine policy at the state level.

WHAT’S NEXT

A3569 is currently pending at the Health and Senior Services Committee of the New Jersey Assembly where it will need to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

 

NOTES

[1] www.nvic.org

[2] https://www.nvic.org/Downloads/49-Doses-PosterB.aspx

[3] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult-compliant.html

[4] Kennedy, Robert, F. Jr.  “Mercury is Not Safe in Any Form:  Debunking the Myths About Thimerosal ‘Safety’”. World Mercury Project.  Accessed 2018. https://worldmercuryproject.org/thimerosal-history/mercury-is-not-safe-in-any-form-debunking-the-myths-about-thimerosal-safety

[5] www.worldmercuryproject.org

[6] www.nvic.org

[7] Miller, Neil Z., Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies:  400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers, Santa Fe, New Mexico:  New Altantean Press.  2016.  Print.

 

 

Davis Taylor
April 02, 2018 at 12:22PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Wyoming Law Exempts Cryptocurrency from Property Taxes; Will Encourage Use and Help Undermine Federal Reserve Monopoly on Money

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (April 2, 2018) – Last month, Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead signed a bill into law to exempt cryptocurrency from property taxes. The new law will help expand the of use digital currency and could ultimately undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.

A bipartisan coalition of six senators and representatives introduced Senate Bill 111 (SF111) on Feb. 14. The new law exempts “virtual currencies” from state property taxes. The bill defines “virtual currencies” as “any type of digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account or store of value and is not recognized as legal tender by the United States government.”

SF111 takes a step toward making virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin (BTC), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Ethereum (ETH), Litecoin (LTC) and Zcash (ZEC), on par with paper currency, gold, silver, other coins, bank drafts, certified checks and cashiers checks. In other words, the law now treats cryptocurrency like money for tax purposes.

The House approved SF111 by a 60-0 vote. The Senate passed the bill by a 30-0 vote. Gov. Mead signed the bill March 10 and went into immediate effect.

Removing tax penalties for holding or using cryptocurrency opens the door for its broader use. When you tax something, you get less of it. When you remove taxes, you will get more of the activity.

Cryptocurrencies are really nothing more than digital money. We don’t tax money, so there is no reason a state should tax Bitcoin and other virtual currencies.

“We ought not to tax money – and that’s a good idea. It makes no sense to tax money,” former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul said during testimony in support an Arizona bill that repealed capital gains taxes on gold and silver in that state.

Passage of SF111 takes an important first step toward generating currency competition. If other forms of money, whether it be cryptocurrencies or gold and silver, gain a foothold in the marketplace against Federal Reserve notes, people will be able to choose them over the central bank’s rapidly-depreciating paper currency. The freedom of choice expanded by SF111 helps allow Wyoming residents to secure the purchasing power of their money.

In a paper published at the Mises Institute, Constitutional tender expert Professor William Greene said when people in multiple states start using gold and silver instead of Federal Reserve Notes, it would effectively nullify the Federal Reserve and end the federal government’s monopoly on money.

“Over time, as residents of the state use both Federal Reserve notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve notes). As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the state’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the state – as people in other states carry out their desire to bank with sound money – and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve notes for any transactions.”

Once things get to that point, Federal Reserve notes would become largely unwanted and irrelevant for ordinary people.

Cryptocurrencies open up another pathway to this same goal.

Mike Maharrey
April 02, 2018 at 12:19PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Today in History: Passage of the Coinage Act of 1792

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

Today in history, the Coinage Act of 1792 was passed. It was the first attempt, under the current Constitution, to establish a coinage system for the United States.

The coins were based on a decimal system, championed by Thomas Jefferson and Robert Morris in the 1780s. In a report entitled, “Notes on the Establishment of a Money Unit and Coinage for the United States,” Jefferson endorsed Morris’ plan to use the system for the first coins, and Congress agreed. The coins became known as the Nova Constellatio.

Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution prohibited paper money at both a Congressional and state level. During the 1780s, the states printed debtor-friendly bills of credit that became rapidly debased, enraging creditors and creating an economic calamity.

Because of a push, primarily by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, the new Constitution established that Congress possesses the power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Additionally, no state could “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Madison’s notes reflect that Sherman believed the economic doldrums produced “a favorable crisis for crushing paper money.” He noted that without such constraint, the friends of paper money would make “every exertion” to get into the Legislature in order to license it. The prohibition on the emission of bills of credit passed by a margin of 8-1, with one state divided.

Sherman was not alone in his opposition to paper money, and several others recognized this necessity. In North Carolina’s state ratifying convention, William Davie observed that “it is essential to the interests of agriculture and commerce, that the hands of the states should be bound from making paper money, installment laws, or pine-barren acts. By such iniquitous laws the merchant or farmer may be defrauded of a considerable part of his just claims.” Even Alexander Hamilton, a fierce proponent of national banking, maintained: “The emitting of paper money by the authority of Government is wisely prohibited to the individual States, by the National Constitution. And the spirit of that prohibition ought not to be disregarded, by the Government of the United States.”

Under the 1792 Act, a United States Mint was established for the first time. The United States dollar was tied to the value of the Spanish silver dollar, which had been widely circulated in North America for several decades. For the first time, the act created a copper cent, the grandfather of today’s variant. The act also created Eagles – worth $10, Half Eagles – worth $5, Dollars – worth $1, and Quarters – worth $0.25, among other demarcations.

All coinage was backed by weighted bullion in standard gold, silver, and copper, in accordance with the constitutional power. At a central level, bullion-based coinage was never abandoned until 1861, where the United States government printed fiat “Greenbacks” that rapidly depreciated in value over the next few years. Compounding the problem further, some state banks refused to accept the paper for deposits or accept them for the payment of taxes.

Dave Benner
April 02, 2018 at 12:17PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Dick Morris Joins Rachel Maddow’s Anti-Nullification Choir

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

Has Rachel Maddow become the new choir director for the Republican Party?

Over the last several weeks, we’ve seen a number of prominent Republicans marching along happily singing Maddow’s little tune about nullification. You know the one. It goes like this: Slaver John C. Calhoun created nullification to protect slavery and then there was a Civil War.

Jeff Sessions parroted this nonsense. So did Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.). John Bolton picked up the tune. Some guy from the Heritage Foundation even joined the chorus. Now we can add Dick Morris to Maddow’s choir.

All of these Republicans are upset because California passed a law that bars cooperation with some aspects of federal immigration enforcement. In the minds of Maddow and her GOP choirboys, this is straight-up Calhounian nullification. And everybody knows nullification is racist and un-American. So, we must reject California’s “sanctuary state” policies! *queue guitar solo*

Dick Morris sang the Maddow tune this way.

“Not since Sen. John C. Calhoun induced the South Carolina legislature to disregard federal laws imposing tariffs on imports has the doctrine of state nullification reared its ugly head.”

I do have to give Dick a little bit of credit. At least he didn’t claim Calhoun was pushing nullification so that “South Carolina and other slave states would not enforce federal law regarding slavery.” That’s what Bolton said. Of course, Bolton’s comment is utter nonsense. Slavery was the law of the land. I’m not sure exactly what John thinks there was to nullify.

So, yes, Morris got the tariff part right. But claiming that the tariff crisis was the last time nullification “reared its ugly head,” is almost as absurd as Bolton’s tale about slavery.

Of course, Northern states used nullification tactics very similar to those being employed by California to block enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. In other words, these states refused to help federal marshals and Southern slave catchers round up runaway slaves and send them back South into bondage.The last time I checked, 1850 was after 1832.

Also, this doesn’t seem very racist.

And it certainly isn’t ugly.

Granted, we can raise some questions worthy of discussion about California’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. For more than 175 years, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government can’t force states to use their personnel and resources to enforce federal law, a legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, Does California’s sanctuary policy cross the line into active interference with federal agents in some cases? Perhaps. It’s interesting to note some of the Personal Liberty Laws passed by Northern states to protect runaway slaves in the 1850s crossed that line as well.

Regardless, no matter how we answer that question, one thing remains certain: California’s sanctuary policies are not Calounian nullification. The state makes no claim about the constitutionality of federal immigration law. It simply says, “We don’t want to do this, and we’re not going to.” California’s policies have more in common with James Madison’s strategy to stop “unwarrantable” federal actions – or as the “Father of the Constitution” noted in Federalist #46 – even to stop “warrantable” actions that happen to be unpopular. Madison said states could create impediments and obstacles to federal action through “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union.”

Is this nullification? in the broad sense of the word, it is. But it isn’t the Calhounian nullification Maddow and her merry band of Republicans keep talking about. John C.Calhoun came up with a very specific (and constitutionally dubious) nullification process. It has virtually nothing in common with any sanctuary policy, beyond the broad objective of hindering federal action.

Speaking of the constitutionality of federal immigration, Morris said there is no question about it.

“Nothing could be clearer in our federal constitution than the right of Congress to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization’ (Article 1; Section *(4)).”

OK. True.

And nothing could be clearer than the fact naturalization is not the same as immigration.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines naturalization as, “The act of adopting an alien into a nation, and clothing him with all the rights possessed by a natural- born citizen.”

Yes, the federal government has full control over the naturalization process. But the Constitution does not delegate any power relating to immigration or the disposition of aliens within a state to the federal government. Under the Tenth Amendment, that means it was left to the states to determine.

In fact, that was the position James Madison took during the first immigration debate. The Alien Friends Act purported to give the federal government the authority to deport non-citizen foreigners it considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” Madison said this act “exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government.”

You could argue the power to regulate commerce and the treaty power confer some authority over immigration to the general government, but naturalization certainly doesn’t. They are two totally different things. And the whole issue certainly isn’t as cut and dry as Morris makes it sound.

There’s nothing wrong with having a healthy debate about America’s immigration policy. But that’s nearly impossible when people keep clouding the issues with bad history, character assassination and outright lies.

Sadly though, this is part and parcel of the Maddow crowd – tar anybody who disagrees with your position as an ignorant moron who’s probably also a racist. Too bad they remain oblivious to their own idiocy and ignorance.

Dick Morris image originally posted to Flickr by markn3tel and used here under a CreativeCommons 2.0 license.

Mike Maharrey
April 02, 2018 at 02:38AM