*******

Question from Danny de Garcia: One of the terms that has entered the public’s ears these days is “states rights” followed immediately by “Tenth Amendment.” It’s definitely stirred a lot of curiosity and controversy alike throughout the political spectrum. How would you describe what states’ rights are to someone who has never heard of it before?

Michael Boldin: The Tenth Amendment is best thought of as an exclamation point on the Constitution. In legalese, the Tenth is known as a rule of construction, explaining how we’re supposed to read the rest of the document.

What does it say in simple, modern terms? Pretty much this: The federal government is authorized to do a limited amount of stuff. That stuff is found in the Constitution. Everything else, and I mean everything else, is left to the people of each state to determine how they want to handle it.

The government people in Washington DC hold the view that they can regulate and virtually control everything and anything that moves. Under the Founders’ Constitutional [view] – instead of the twisted version that these politicians and judges alike have foisted upon us for decades – such view is not just wrong.

It’s absurd – and dangerous. No person and no institution can be trusted with that kind of power.

DDG: Tell us a little bit about yourself and the Tenth Amendment Center. What got you started in advocating the Tenth Amendment and what led to you founding the organization?

Boldin: The best way for me to describe the Tenth Amendment Center and our work since we were founded in mid-2006 is through two great quotes from leading Founders, who were often at odds with one another.

Thomas Jefferson: “The several states comprising the United States of America are not united on a principle of unlimited submission to their general government.”

John Adams: “I would quarrel with both parties and with every individual of each, before I would subjugate my understanding, or prostitute my tongue or pen to either.”

Fact of the matter is this: like every political organization, the TAC has an agenda. Ours though is pretty straightforward – The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

DDG: It’s been suggested by some that rather than waiting for Congress to repeal “Obamacare” and other recent mandates that didn’t sit well with the states, local legislatures could use something called “nullification” to refuse to enforce it within their state borders. What exactly is nullification? Has it ever been used before?

Boldin: I’m glad you asked that as nullification which came right from prominent Founders is seeing a massive resurgence all over the country in recent years.

In fact, there’s so much nullification activity in state legislatures these days that we’re premiering a feature-length documentary film on the subject at CPAC this year. Nullification: The Rightful Remedy is showing at 5:30PM on Thursday, February 9th in the Citizens United CPAC Theater.

Nullification begins with the simple point that a federal “law” that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It’s a usurpation of power.

Both Jefferson and Madison gave us an important warning about power. If the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of their own powers – that power would always grow, regardless of elections, or protests, or lawsuits, or “voting the bums out.”

For countless decades these two men have been proven right. Year in and year out, federal power grows and your liberty diminishes. And it doesn’t matter which political party is in power, or what individual occupies the White House.

But really, the very best way to explain nullification is to explain what it is not.

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling.

Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of your own state.

So just what is nullification you might be asking?

Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist an unconstitutional federal law. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum.

It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce a particular federal law deemed to be unconstitutional.

DDG: In recent decades there seems to be a growing number of academics and politicians alike who believe in strong executive authority, that is the belief that the President of the United States can essentially do anything he wants – with or without the permission of Congress or the states for that matter. In 1973, Arthur Schlesinger bemoaned this trend with his book “The Imperial Presidency.” What is your thoughts on this? Do you think that the Presidency has overstepped its authority and grown too powerful?

Boldin: There doesn’t seem to be a single part of the federal government that has not overstepped its constitutionally delegated powers in massive ways. Today, we have a federal government that crosses the line almost constantly.

The federal government believes that it is authorized to tell us what size toilet we can have, what kind of light bulbs we can buy, what kind of plants we can grow and consume in our backyard, and soon – how much they can penalize us for inactivity. And that’s just scratching the surface.

Yes, the Executive Branch has overstepped its authority. Congress has overstepped its authority. The Courts have overstepped their authority. And many Federal departments and agencies shouldn’t even exist – if we care about the Constitution, liberty and prosperity, that is.

DDG: I hear pundits saying things like “the Federal government exists to protect me from my state government.” What would be your response to that?

Boldin: This statement couldn’t be further from the truth. Nowhere in the founding records is there any indication that the “People of the Several States” created a federal government to “protect them from state governments.”

Instead, they formed that government to take on roles they felt that the States were inadequately equipped for on their own. And, recognizing that unlimited power was likely the greatest threat to liberty, they did something unique in history, and wrote a Constitution to provide specific limits to federal power.

That doesn’t mean, however, that state governments are a bunch of angels. Many, if not most, of them are awful. But, when power is decentralized and dispersed over large areas, bad decisions are checked whereas one-size-fits-all “solutions” affect us all.

Think of it this way. If George W. Bush had been president of just Texas and Barack Obama presided only over Illinois – the world would likely be a much different – and better – place.

Maybe REAL ID, No Child Left Behind and TARP would’ve just hit Texas. And Illinois would’ve been stuck with Health Care Mandates, the NDAA, and others. As Ronald Reagan used to put it – when problems arise, you can still have a chance – to vote with your feet. This keeps bad governments in check far more than “voting the bums” out, which seems to only give us new bums every few years.

DDG: Last question. State legislatures all across the United States have started session. What would be your number one recommendation to state legislators this year?

Boldin: For those of you with children, when they hit two or three, they had something quite important to teach you. It’s just two letters – no.

Become a member and support the TAC!

When enough people stand up and say no to Washington D.C., and enough states pass laws backing their people up, it’s pretty difficult for the Federal Government to force their unconstitutional “laws,” regulations and mandates down our throats.

The Tenth Amendment Center has plenty of model legislation ready to go and we’re here to help. There are states all over the country considering bills on various issues to say no to Washington D.C.

The time for you to join them is now. Not next year, and not next fall. Not next month or next week.; Today, not tomorrow. Right now. Liberty and the Constitution need you.

Over the last week, we’ve seen people never before interested in the work of the Tenth Amendment Center logging on to our website, quoting us in news stories, and emailing to ask how they can help. These folks span the political spectrum from left to right; Republican, Democrat and independent, and even the generally apathetic.

The idea that your government can kidnap you seems to have lit off a firestorm.

Some scoff at the use of the word “kidnapping,” calling it hyperbole designed to stir up emotions. But what else can you call it?

kidnap: verb (used with object), -napped or -naped, -nap·ping or -nap·ing.
to steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud…

When you remove due process from the equation, arrest becomes nothing more than sanctioned kidnapping. Americans know this. We may suffer from frequent bouts of apathy, but we aren’t stupid.

Just yesterday, I received and email from a dear woman in Washington state.

Mr Maharrey;  My husband served his country for over seventeen years, While in the Submarine Service. We as a family paid the price for our rights. How many Veterans now wish they had not wasted the time away from of their families. Yet sacrificed for our freedom.  Only because Congress and Senate have written laws like these and many others. This one tops them all.

Americans understand the draconian nature of these detention provisions. Now, many previously disengaged stand ready to fight.

I say, welcome to the party!

But make no mistake; this can’t end simply by rolling back the detention provisions of the NDAA alone, as important as that is. It took 100 years or more of  federal government power grabs  to bring us to this place.

In August 1974, Pres. Gerald R. Ford told a joint session of Congress, ” A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Many Americans cheerlead as the federal government take on roles never authorized by the Constitution. During the 1930s, large numbers of Americans praised FDR for his “New Deal.” They lauded Pres. Johnson for his “Great Society.” On the other side of the political spectrum, conservatives praised Pres. George W. Bush for the Patriot Act and clamored for a bigger badder “War on Drugs.” Federal environmental regulations, food regulations, health care acts, TSA gropes – the list goes on and on. Americans sat by quietly as the feds exercised more and more powers not delegated.

Why?

Because we thought those were “good” things. The government was trying to solve problems we knew needed solving. As long as we viewed those ends as justified, we ignored the unconstitutional nature of the means.

Surprisingly, it looks like Gerald Ford was right.

Because today, we see in the detention provisions of NDAA the legacy of 100-plus years of federal growth

This is not the federal government our founders envisioned. They created a general government with limited powers, leaving the rest to the states and the people. Read closely the words of James Madison in Federalist 45.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which the last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

The framers limited the scope of the federal government for a reason. They knew something like NDAA would eventually come down the pike.

At the Tenth Amendment Center, we don’t trust government power at ANY level. We know power corrupts. We know state and local governments do their fair share of nasty things. But we also recognize decentralization checks power. If government power is bad, centralized government power is much worse.

Think of it this way: a cup of bleach is quite caustic. It can quickly burn skin and ruin clothes. Now dump that cup of bleach into two gallons of water. It can still whiten your clothes, and the bleach still retains a bit of a kick, but it can cause much less damage when diluted.

Make no mistake; the Tenth Amendment Center aims to render the detention provisions in the NDAA null and void. But we won’t stop there. Our ultimate mission is to return to a proper balance of power between the states and federal governments, as intended by the founders and expressly stated in the Tenth Amendment. Our agenda is really quite simple: follow the Constitution every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.

Become a member and support the TAC!

If we successfully fight NDAA detention and stop there, we’ve done nothing but mow the grass. We must pull it up by its roots. We must dismantle the unconstitutional system that exists in the U.S. and return to the system intended by those who created it.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

So for those of you new to all this, thanks for stopping by! Welcome to the party. We hope you’ll stick around for the grand finale.

NOTE: The preceding was recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 34 on February 8, 2012. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link.

Yes they are.

This is a complicated area, and there has been a lot of word-fudging in spinning this subject. So bear with me as we take things step by step.

*    The U.S. Constitution generally guarantees the “Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.” The writ of habeas corpus is a court order a prisoner can obtain requiring the jailer to come into court and justify his detention of the prisoner. It is a traditional way in which those held can demand a fair trial by jury in a civilian court. The writ of habeas corpus is a treasured part of our traditional liberty. Belief that the British were infringing it was one cause of the American Revolution.  (The writ is called a “privilege” rather than a “right” because it is a creation of the legal system rather than a natural right, like the right to free speech.)

*    By the Constitution’s original meaning, the privilege of habeas corpus is guaranteed to all those in “allegiance” to the United States. “Allegiance” is an old technical legal term that includes both citizens and aliens legally in the country.

*    By successfully convincing a judge to issue a writ of habeas corpus, citizens, foreign visitors, and legal residents may obtain a hearing that may induce the judge to order a civilian trial. It matters not how heinous the crimes they are accused of. For example, a person charged with trying to blow up a building on behalf of a foreign power can be charged with treason. But while still merely accused, he is entitled to all the protections of due process, including a fair, public trial before a jury of his peers.

*    By the Constitution’s original meaning, habeas corpus does NOT apply if the Congress, as an incident to its war power, “suspends” the writ for a particular time and place. However, the Constitution says that Congress may “suspend” the writ only “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Congress has not suspended the writ, and it is doubtful that occasional acts of terrorism constitute a sufficient “rebellion or invasion” to justify doing so. Even if Congress could suspend the writ, a Bill of Suspension would be a serious, much-debated measure for which Congress would have to assume direct political accountability. Political accountability is not a big priority with Congress right now.

*    Members of all belligerent armed forces (both sides) are subject to military, not civilian, law.

*    Thus, by the law of war, the executive (and the military officers under him) may incarcerate for the duration of the conflict any enemy combatants captured in the theater of war.

*    By the Constitution’s original meaning the executive has no constitutional power (without formal congressional suspension of the writ) to lock up citizens or lawful aliens apprehended outside the war theater. If accused of crime, the accused has the privilege of a jury trial in a civilian court. By the Constitution’s original meaning, this constitutional right does not apply to enemy aliens, wherever apprehended.

*    In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court (erroneously, in my view) held that alien Guantanamo detainees have the right to habeas corpus to determine if they are really enemy combatants. Still, under this case if they are found to be enemy combatants they can go back to prison indefinitely.

Now, with that background, let’s look at the critical language of the Act, again step by step:

§1021: (a) Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force . . . includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons . . . pending disposition under the law of war.

Comment: The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) is the resolution passed in the wake of 9/11 authorizing the President to fight terrorism. The National Defense Authorization Act is sometimes justified as mere clarification of the AUMF.

(b) . . A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

Comment: This provision includes people accused of certain terror-related crimes. Fine— but it does not exempt U.S. citizens or legal aliens with U.S. territory. Thus, far, it appears they can be “detain[ed] . . . pending disposition under the law of war.” But what does that mean?

c) . .  The disposition of a person under the law of war . .  may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. . .

Comment: This clarifies that the government may detain anyone so charged “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” Apologists for the law point out that it permits other dispositions “under the law of war,” including civilian trial. But the point is that the law does not require those other dispositions. The administration can simply decide to detain you “without trial until the end of hostilities.”

(d) . . . Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Comment: This is a basis for the argument that all Congress is really doing is clarifying the AUMF. But this is cold comfort, because the position of the Obama administration is that the AUMF always authorized rounding up citizen-suspects and holding them without trial!

(e) . . . Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Comment: This provision is sometimes touted as protecting citizens because it preserves existing Supreme Court decisions. The problem is that, as yet, there are no Supreme Court decisions that squarely provide the full measure of habeas corpus protection to citizens or legal aliens accused within our borders. This is true because neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has had the audacity to round up U.S. citizens without our borders and hold them indefinitely without trial.

Here are the principal Supreme Court decisions the law preserves:

(1) A post-Civil War case (Ex Parte Milligan) saying a citizen non-combatant  incarcerated outside the theater of war is entitled to habeas corpus. (This holding doesn’t help those accused of being combatants.)

(2) The World War II-era Quirin decision that permitted President Roosevelt to detain, try in a secret military hearing, and execute a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. territory and accused of being a German spy. Obviously, this decision—which is widely acknowledged to be egregious—offers no protection against the National Defense Authorization Act.

(3) The 2004 Hamdi case, which says that a U.S. citizen captured bearing arms in the war theater is NOT entitled to habeas corpus. He is entitled only to a minimal military hearing without a jury and without many of the traditional due process protections.. (Some apologists for the National Defense Authorization Act are claiming the Hamdi case granted a right of habeas corpus; this claim is flatly wrong.)

(4) The 2008 Boumedienne decision, which held that alien Guantanamo detainees are entitled to habeas corpus and a civilian hearing to show that they were non-combatants.

Obviously, none of these prior holdings addresses the habeas corpus rights of a U.S. citizen or legal alien apprehended within the U.S. and charged with being an enemy combatant. So there is no Supreme Court case providing the necessary protection preserved by the law’s provision that “existing law or authorities” are preserved.

§ 1022: (b) (1) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Comment: This section says that the administration is not REQUIRED to keep a U.S. citizen or legal resident alien in indefinite military custody. But it does not prevent the administration from doing so.

* * * *

Get the 2nd Edition Today!

When you look at sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act objectively, they become scary in their potential. If the administration does try to use it to lock up American citizens without habeas corpus, the Supreme Court probably will void the incarceration and require a civilian trial. But in the normal course of events, vindicating one’s rights could take years.

Of course, in America, we traditionally don’t lock up citizens on mere suspicion. . . .

Or is that is now changing?

The federal constitution ratified by the people of the States provided for a limited government to handle specified joint affairs of the States. The document describes itself not as “the U.S. Constitution” or the “Constitution of the United States,” but as a “Constitution FOR the United States of America.” With this in mind, read what follows in the preamble as the purposes of this instrument: “forming a more perfect Union,” “common defense,” and “general welfare.” Throughout the document “United States” is a plural (the States United) and treason against the United States consists of levying war against THEM.

As clear and simple as these facts are and have always been, grasping them seems to be beyond the abilities of presidents, congresspersons, supreme court justices, and professors of “Constitutional Law” at the most prestigious institutions.

In recent times the abuses of these people (what the Founders would have described as “usurpations” justifying rebellion) have run amuck, distorting an already wounded constitution beyond recognition. Ambition, rent-seeking, willful historical ignorance, deceit, ideology, and the lust for power (which the Founders hoped to guard against) have rendered the real constitution of our forefathers virtually null and void. This has prompted serious citizens to re-expound what the Constitution for the United States is supposed to be. There have been good books in this vein by Professors Thomas Woods, Walter K. Wood, and Kevin Gutzman, and by William J. Watkins and Judge Andrew Napolitano.

James Madison is reputed by those who don’t know any better to be the “Father of the Constitution.” In fact, Madison lost more votes than he won at Philadelphia, although he did more maneuvering and scribbling than any other delegate. In his almost half-century of post-ratification life Madison was all over the place, contradicting himself numerous times on constitutional interpretation. But Madison himself in one of his more lucid moments tells us where we should look for the meaning of the Constitution. The meaning of the Constitution, he avowed, is to be found in the understanding of those who ratified it, who alone gave what was merely a proposal all the authority it possesses.

The latest contribution to this field is The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution by Professor Brion McClanahan, just published by Regnery History. McClanahan’s treatment of the subject is in many ways the best, a concise, hard hitting constitutional handbook that goes right to the true source of understanding without being diverted by later commentaries and judicial opinions. What the drafters of the Constitution meant is revealed in the first place but not exclusively or even primarily by their discussions and votes, including the ideas that were voted down. (Many of those reappeared later touted as legitimate federal powers.)

So we must look for understanding at the discussions that preceded the ratification conventions and at the conventions themselves. McClanahan knows this ground thoroughly and tells us in convincing chapter and verse on each article what those who ratified the Constitution intended and, perhaps more importantly, what they did not intend.

The opponents of the Constitution feared that the document would prove an instrument for the incremental establishment of a centralized dictatorship over the people. They were right. But, as McClanahan makes clear, the proponents of the Constitution swore point by point that the powers granted were limited and no cause for alarm. These assurances persuaded some of the doubtful. Ratification would never have passed otherwise, and, as it was, it only passed with assurances that amendments would be swiftly adopted and with several States making it clear that their ratification was revocable.

The Federalist, which we see cited all the time as the key to the Constitution is speculation and was never ratified by anybody. But handicapped thinkers read Madison’s philosophical ruminations, nearly all of which have been proved superficial and wrong, and imagine themselves participating in deep thoughts about government and learning about the true Constitution. This is part of the long-established practice of treating the Constitution as something sacred handed down by divine wisdom rather than understanding it by its real history.

So in interpretation we ought to be guided by what the proponents of the Constitution plainly said it intended. This is what McClanahan elucidates point by point. If we accept what its proponents said, then those who ratified it believed that it established a limited federal power. Third-string “political philosophers” and “Constitutional scholars,” and even learned jurists, have made an icon out of The Federalist, but it is only one of many discussions of the Constitution. It was a partisan document designed to overcome the objections of New York, and was not very convincing to its audience since ratification passed in New York by the narrowest possible margin Furthermore, it discusses the Constitution as it was merely a proposal under consideration and not the Constitution as ratified by the people of the States, who made their intentions clear in the undisputable language of the 10^th Amendment.

The authors – Madison, Hamilton, and Jay – were all disappointed that the Constitution did not centralize power as much as they would have liked, yet realized what they had to say to win over the majority. On the part of Alexander Hamilton, contributions to The Federalist were outright dishonest, because once he got into power he worked to do all sorts of things that he claimed the Constitution did not authorize.

The Constitution is there. It can still be known and understood by honest citizens. As McClanahan writes, the real Constitution is a “limiting document,” not a grant of limitless power. Whether that Constitution can ever be established again is a question of political will and whatever is left in the American people of a capacity for self-government.

Clyde Wilson [send him mail] is a recovering professor. Now that he is no longer a professor of history he can at last be a real historian. He is the editor of The Papers of John C. Calhoun. His forthcoming book,Forgotten Conservatives in American History (Pelican, 2012), is co-authored by Brion McClanahan.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act. Two sections of the bill permit the Kidnapping (arrest and indefinite detention without due process) of both citizens and non-citizens, charged with being tangentially related to terrorist groups or activities.

Members of Congress keep misleading constituents about what the bill actually does.

DownsizeDC.org already addressed the lie, “Don’t Worry, the NDAA exempts Americans” back on January 17. We consider that to be Part 1 in our responding to lies series.

The Latest Lie

A DC Downsizer writes, “Senator (blank)’s office is claiming that the NDAA gives the executive no new authority and only codifies a 2001 Supreme Court decision.”

This is supposed to make us feel better?

It doesn’t matter whether the office making this claim realizes they are prevaricating or they’re just ignorant and repeating a fable they’ve been told. Neither explanation of their behavior reflects well on them.

Let’s strip the cleverness. What are they’re ACTUALLY saying? 

“For years, the Executive Branch has usurped and used very similar powers. We, in Congress, have come along and brought the code of law in compliance with these acts. We have merely provided our endorsement and cover to them.”

Now, there’s actually a grain of truth in that statement, when it’s rendered that accurately. The Executive branch was outside the law. So what the Senator’s office is really saying is, “Two wrongs make a right.” 

But this answer is still misleading because this bill does NEW things . . . 

1) For the first time, America was declared part of the “battlefield” in the war on terrorism.

* Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who backed the bill, indicated that the bill “basically say(s) in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” and that people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.”
* Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

2) Indefinite detention for American citizens was also novel.

Consider the following exchange between him and Senator Rand Paul from the Senate floor . . . 

MR. PAUL: My question would be, under the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen could be declared an ‘enemy combatant’ and sent to Guantanamo Bay, and detained indefinitely?

MR. McCAIN: I think that as long as that individual, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, if they POSE A THREAT to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue the threat.

3) As of yet, no bill calls for total repeal of BOTH offending sections, 1021 and 1022. But there are bills by Senator Diane Feinstein, Ron Paul, and others, calling for modification or repeal of various aspects.

Why would such bills be necessary, and even more important, why are they being resisted, IF, no new power is represented here?

• Repeal 1021? Well, we don’t really need it because the power already existed, right? 
• Declare that America is not part of the battlefield, continuing with Posse Comitatus? Why not, since there’s nothing new here?
• Exempt Americans? Why object, if there’s nothing novel about this law?

By the way, since there’s an office saying that there’s a Supreme Court case, and they are merely “ratifying,” then I’m curious about two more things . . . 

1) What is the decision to which they are referring?

2) What clause in the Constitution permitted either the Executive Branch or the Supreme Court to create a law, and the Congress to come along and “ratify” it? Isn’t this EXPRESSLY the opposite of the Constitutional design, whereby the elected representatives of the people legislate?

I hate to name names because this “Don’t Worry” lying campaign is widespread amongst Congress-criminals. Call your Reps and Senators to find out if they are among the guilty.

*******

EDITOR’S NOTE – This post originally appeared at DownsizeDC.org

CLICK HERE – for state and local model legislation to stop the NDAA in your area.

Back in 2005, the Bush Administration got the REAL ID Act slammed through Congress – and a lot of people from all across the political spectrum were pretty upset about it.  The ACLU was clearly part of that.  In fact, in September of 2005, they registered a domain name which is still active today – realnightmare.org.

By January of 2006 (or possibly even before), they were already leading the charge nationally to oppose the previously passed federal act.  Their new website was live and offering a LOT of good information about the problems with REAL ID.  One of the most interesting sections of that website was part of their main header navigation – a button called “in the states”   Here’s the text from that page as it stood on January 18, 2006:

The Real ID Act does not directly change driver’s licenses – instead it threatens the states by stating that the federal government will not accept their citizens’ IDs unless the states change their laws.  As a result, the Act cannot enter into effect unless the states change their laws and appropriate funds. This page will monitor and track such legislation, and other developments within the states.

Interesting.  Unless I’m mistaken, it sounds to me like the ACLU was recommending that states refuse to comply with the REAL ID Act of 2005.  And, in fact, many states followed that advice over the next few years to some great effect – and the ACLU tracked those actions on that very page.

For those of you who follow our work here at the Tenth Amendment Center this probably sounds quite familiar.  On our legislative tracking page and through our state model legislation – this is pretty much what we do today.  We encourage people to get active locally.  We encourage states to refuse compliance with unconstitutional federal acts.  And we provide model legislation on various issues to help in this process.  Our goals?  To render as many unconstitutional federal acts null and void – or simply unenforceable – in the states.

And whether the issue is mandates, or regulations, or monetary policy, or the TSA – this method has been gaining more and more traction, and even major media attention, over the last few years.

Fast forward to today – in sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, the US Federal Government has committed one of the worst attacks on your liberty in the history of this country.  I never thought I’d see the day when George Bush, John Ashcroft and the PATRIOT Act seemed “moderate.”  They weren’t, of course – but in comparison to what Barack Obama signed on December 31, 2011, they’re not even close.

Within days of that so-called law being signed by Obama, a number of good people, including Blake at the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition – started working on draft legislation to reject this unconstitutional monstrosity at the state level.

And today, within just a few weeks, already two counties have passed resolutions denouncing the act.  Three states are considering binding laws to help nullify the act – and we have firm commitments from many others around the country to consider the same in the very near future.

So what happened when Rhode Island State Representative Dan Gordon reached out to his state’s ACLU chapter on this?  He tweeted about it on January 30:

The RI ACLU chapter said they are opposed to #NDAA but won’t support my resolution due to it’s 10th Amendment assertion #ThePeoplesCaucus

— Rep. Dan Gordon (@RepDanGordon) January 31, 2012

Maybe in Rhode Island, the ACLU has got a rogue chapter – or maybe not.  But either way, here’s an important message for the ACLU -

The 10th Amendment IS part of the Bill of Rights!

Look, I get it.  Every one’s got an agenda.  We do too.  The Constitution – every issue, every time. No exceptions and no excuses.  That’s our agenda.

But, that obviously doesn’t fit with what most other political organizations are trying to accomplish.  We know that.  That’s why we’re often a bit of an island here at the Tenth Amendment Center – debating with everyone.    John Adams probably said it best when he wrote:

…”I would quarrel with both parties and with every individual of each, before I would subjugate my understanding, or prostitute my tongue or pen to either.”

So that’s us – principled to a fault, I guess.  But, we are most certainly willing to work with just about anyone and just about any group on single issues.  We don’t have to be in total agreement on everything to push back against the feds on one particular thing – that would be a recipe for disaster.  A recipe that some – just might want it seems?

Bottom line – we want to work with as many different people as possible on various issues.  The more we can find common ground with others, the greater chance we have in winning – for liberty.

On just about every issue, there’s Downsize DC.  On privacy, indefinite detentions, and more, there’s the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.  On mandates and spending, there’s the Tea Party, the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute and others.  On 8th Amendment violations and habeas corpus issues, there’s World Can’t Wait.  On rejecting corporate bailouts, there’s the Occupy movement.  On local efforts, there’s Oath Keepers and the Free State Project.  On unconstitutional wars, there’s Antiwar.com.  On the federal reserve, there’s Campaign for Liberty and the Sound Money Center.  On the TSA there’s We Won’t Fly.  And on the NDAA – there’s well – it should be just about everyone.

And that includes you too, American Civil Liberties Union.  You’re entrenched, you’re well-funded, and if George Bush was in office, I’m convinced that you’d be setting up a new website, NDAANightmare.org – and working with people on a local or state level to reject these new federal kidnapping powers.

So – you hate the 10th Amendment.  Fine.  Maybe you don’t want the federal government limited to powers delegated to it in the Constitution. Maybe you incorrectly think the 10th Amendment is only available to certain political persuasions.  I don’t actually care why.   All I care about is this – people who oppose the new NDAA Kidnapping law doing something effective to put it to an end.

In fact, there’s already model legislation to reject the NDAA, and we’re going to see it introduced all around the country.  Some versions are much like what you at the ACLU helped push in response to the REAL ID Act – noncompliance – and those say nothing about the 10th Amendment.

We’ll continue to push versions of that legislation that include the 10th – because the NDAA purports to give the Feds powers that were never delegated to them in the Constitution.  And, you can be safe in activating your supporters to get involved in the non-10th Amendment versions.  We will support those too.  All these efforts will help get people involved in stopping the NDAA, just like you did for years against Real ID.

Become a member and support the TAC!

So let’s work together on this issue – or pretend we’re not.  It doesn’t really matter.  But, if you claim to oppose the NDAA, you’ve got two options.  Stand up and say no.  Or admit you’re lying.

Nothing else will change a thing.

NOTE: The preceding was recorded at the close of Tenther Radio Episode 33. The show airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find us on iTunes at this link.

Contact: Mike Maharrey Communications Director
O: 213.935.0553F: 213.402.3938
media@tenthamendmentcenter.com
www.tenthamendmentcenter.com

The Foundation for a Free Society and the Tenth Amendment Center will premiere their full-length documentary film Nullification: The Rightful Remedy during CPAC 2012 in Washington D.C. on Thursday, Feb. 9.

James Madison said states are duty bound to interpose when the feds overreach, and Thomas Jefferson called it, “the rightful remedy.” But what exactly is nullification?

The film, produced and directed by Jason Rink, explores the history of state nullification, its constitutional legitimacy, and how states can use nullification to push back against the encroachment of federal power.

“Nullification: The Rightful Remedy promises to be the most comprehensive documentary on the subject of the Tenth Amendment and nullification, the long-forgotten tool that Jefferson considered our best defense against the Federal Government’s unconstitutional usurpation of power,” Rink said.

The film will debut at 5:30 p.m. in the Citizens United CPAC Theater.

The Foundation for a Free Society and the Tenth Amendment Center will also host two special events on Friday at CPAC. At 4:30 p.m., the organizations will present Jefferson vs. Obama – Decentralization vs. the Modern Federal Government, a series of presentations examining the meaning, role and application of the Tenth Amendment. At 5:30 p.m., Rink, along with other prominent experts and activists, will host a Q&A session on the film and the principles of nullification. Both events will take place in the Harding Room, Mezzanine Level.

For more details on the THURSDAY Film Premiere: http://www.facebook.com/events/286257921434126/

For more details on the FRIDAY special sessions: http://www.facebook.com/events/359528320724889/

###

The Tenth Amendment Center exists to promote and advance a return to a proper balance of power between federal and State governments envisioned by our founders, prescribed by the Constitution and explicitly declared in the Tenth Amendment. A national think tank based in Los Angeles, the Tenth Amendment Center works to preserve and protect the principle of strictly limited government through information, education, and activism.

In the midst of all of the activity, it’s easy to get overwhelmed and lose sight of the reason I got into all of this in the first place.

You see, it all comes down to people.

Limiting the power of the federal government to its prescribed role isn’t just about a high-minded philosophy or loyalty to some political ideology. I got involved with the TAC because I’ve seen the damage done to individuals when overreaching government runs them over. Spending bankrupts our children’s future. Overzealous security measures strip us of our liberty. And burdensome regulation chokes the ability to provide for our families.

Watching a TV show the other night reminded me of this reality.

I admit it; reality television counts as one of my guilty pleasures. And Discovery Channel’s Gold Rush Alaska sucked me right in from episode one. Watching those novices bumble around Alaska attempting to mine gold brings to mind the proverbial train wreck. I just can’t turn away.

Parker Schnabel and his 96-year-old grandfather are my favorite characters in the show. The 17-year-old high school student took over the Big Nugget mine for the summer. The other night, I was watching, discussing with my wife how much I admire the kid’s work ethic, when a federal regulator showed up to do safety inspections at Big Nugget.

Uh-oh.

Sure enough, the inspector shut down the mine because Parker and his grandfather lacked the required eight hours of “site specific” safety training. Parker explains that his grandfather ran the mine for 26 years, always emphasizing safety. Never an injury. But that fact didn’t matter a lick to the inspector. Rules are rules and the mine shut down, ultimately costing Parker more than $3,000 in lost time and costs to hire a certified trainer. Talk about a life lesson.

Mr. Regulator wasn’t finished. Next he showed up at the Porcupine Creek mine, shutting down that operation for the same violation.

“I just don’t understand a site specific anything, because we know this mine better than any instructor ever thought of knowing,” Fred Hurt protests.

“We’re regulating,” the inspector says with a chuckle. “To protect the health and safety of the miners.”

Hurt walks to his truck in utter disgust, knowing the shutdown and cost of hiring a trainer will set him way back in both cash and lost mining time.

“Two or three days of mining – period, minimum that we’re shut down.  You just tell me how anybody would feel other than angry, over B.S. like this.”

Hurt and Schnabel’s experiences exemplify the problem with centralized, one-size-fits-all regulations. They lack any responsiveness to local circumstances. Some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. comes up with regulations and then the feds apply them across the entire United States. No leeway exists for local circumstances. The regulations include no flexibility for unique situations. And federal regulators have no clue what really goes on at a given mine on a regular basis.  It creates a dog a pony show situation. Those regulated jump through hoops to comply with the letter of the law, spend hours keeping up with the required documentation and stage everything perfectly when the inspector shows up.

Do these regulations “protect the health and safety of the miners?” Debatable. Do they cost millions of dollars and create countless headaches. Undoubtedly. And the entire system lacks soul. It churns away like the bureaucratic machine it is, chewing up lives in the process.

The founders understood far-away, unresponsive, centralized government. They experienced its ugly power first hand. They felt powerlessness and anger when some functionary with no knowledge of their circumstances rolled into town and told them, “You WILL do it this way,” and then extracted a sum of money from their pockets for the privilege of their oversight. And they fought a war to free themselves from the tyranny.

This raises the question: why would they create strong centralized, all powerful government to replace the one they threw off?

They would not.

In fact, the framers created a general government with limited, enumerated powers, leaving most authority to the states. As James Madison explains in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which the last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Become a member and support the TAC!

The actions of that federal mining inspector violated the Constitution. It grants no “mining regulation” power to the feds. And that should matter to anybody who cares about the rule of law. But even more important, one-size-fits-all, broad-brush regulations damage the lives and livelihoods of real Americans.

And that is why I continue to do what I do.

Americans — and much of the rest of the world — have been deprived of one of the most important means of establishing and maintaining a free society, namely, federalism or states’ rights. It is not just an accident that states’ rights have either been relegated to the memory hole, or denigrated as a tool of racists and other miscreants. The Jeffersonian states’-rights tradition was — and is — the key to understanding why Thomas Jefferson believed that the best government is that which governs least, and that a limited constitutional government was indeed possible.

What Are “States’ Rights”?

The idea of states’ rights is most closely associated with the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and his political heirs. Jefferson himself never entertained the idea that “states have rights,” as some of the less educated critics of the idea have claimed. Of course “states” don’t have rights. The essence of Jefferson’s idea is that if the people are to be the masters rather than the servants of their own government, then they must have some vehicle with which to control that government. That vehicle, in the Jeffersonian tradition, is political communities organized at the state and local level. That is how the people were to monitor, control, discipline, and even abolish, if need be, their own government.

It was Jefferson, after all, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that government’s just powers arise only from the consent of the people, and that whenever the government becomes abusive of the peoples’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the peoples’ dutyto abolish that government and replace it with another one. And how were the people to achieve this? They were to achieve it just as they did when they adopted the Constitution, through political conventions organized by the states. The states, after all, were considered to be independent nations just as England and France were independent nations. The Declaration of Independence referred to them specifically as “free and independent,” independent enough to raise taxes and wage war, just like any other state.

That is why the political heirs of Thomas Jefferson, mid-19th-century Southern Democrats, held statewide political conventions (and popular votes) to decide whether or not they would continue to remain in then voluntary union of the Founding Fathers. Article 7 of the US Constitution explained that the states could join (or not join) the union according to votes taken at state political conventions by representatives of the people (not state legislatures) and, in keeping with the words of the Declaration, they also had a right to vote to secede from the government and create a new one.

Jefferson was not only the author of America’s Declaration of Secession from the British Empire; he championed the idea of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws with his Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, and also believed that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution was the cornerstone of the entire document. He was a “strict constructionist” who believed that every effort should be made to force the central government to possess only those powers delegated to it in Article 1, Section 8. Delegated to it by the states, that is. All others are reserved to the states, respectively, and to the people under the Tenth Amendment.

States’ rights or federalism never meant that state politicians were somehow more moral, wise, or less corrupt than national politicians. The idea was always that

1. it is easier for the people to keep an eye on and control politicians the closer they are to them, and
2. a decentralized system of government consisting of numerous states provided American citizens with an escape hatch from tyrannical governments.

If Massachusetts created a state theocracy, for example, those who did not want to live under the thumb of Puritan theocrats could escape to Virginia or some other state. The idea of states’ rights was never meant by the Jeffersonians to create a “laboratory of experimentation” with government interventionism, as modern political scientists have said. That would be treating people as so many experimental rats in a cage, and that is not how Jefferson liked to think of himself.

Secession or the threat of secession was always intended as a possible means of maintaining both the American union and constitutional government. The idea was that the central government would likely only propose constitutional laws if it understood that unconstitutional laws could lead to secession or nullification. Nullification and the threat thereof were intended to have the same effect. That is why the great British historian of liberty, Lord Acton, wrote the following letter to General Robert E. Lee on November 4, 1866, seventeen months after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox:

I saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic [i.e., the Confederate Constitution] have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly an wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.

What Lord Acton is saying here is that he considered it to be a disaster for the entire world that the right of secession was abolished by the war. The 20th century would become the century of consolidated, monopolistic government in Russia, Germany, the United States, and elsewhere, and it was a disaster for humanity. Had the rights of secession and nullification remained in place, and had slavery been abolished peacefully as it had been everywhere else in the world, America would have been a counterexample of decentralized, limited government for the rest of the world.

General Lee understood this. In his December 15, 1866, response to Lord Acton he wrote,

While I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only are essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.(emphasis added)

This is all a part of America’s lost history. The advocates of centralization who were the victors in the War to Prevent Southern Independence rewrote the history of America, as the victors in war always do. This is why I am offering a new four-week online course under the Auspices of the Mises Academy entitled Freedom and Federalism: The Libertarian States’ Rights Tradition. Classes will meet beginning on Thursday, February 2. The purpose of the course is to introduce students to the libertarian or classical-liberal states’-rights tradition, and to impart to them an understanding of how such historical figures as Thomas Jefferson and Lord Acton believed that that tradition was the key to controlling “the sovereign will” and preventing democracies from turning into despotisms and tyrannies.

Thomas DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and a member of the senior faculty of the Mises Institute. He is the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked; How Capitalism Saved America; and Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution — And What It Means for Americans Today. Send him mail. See Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s article archives.

“I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL. “

This individual choice explained in terms of liberty and freedom is bold; and highlights the message of a large set of Americans with significant and very real disappointment with leaders of both parties.  In addition, these words express a genuine frustration with the tools available to the people to protect fundamental rights.

I believe a sentiment common to  many American citizens can be boiled down to: The Constitution no longer seems to protect individual liberties from corrupt politicians. Why?

The answer lies, in part, on an over-reliance on the Separation of Powers as a check on government; while other power decentralizing components of the Constitution are simply ignored.

Thomas Jefferson expressed the importance of binding the hands of the central government directly:

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so they will not become the legalized version of the first.”

Is it possible that these chains on federal power have been relaxed to a point that the beast of corrupt government has been set free to roam?  Is it possible our comforting Separation of Powers has been abused to the point of failure?

A general school textbook would outline the branches of government as executive, legislative and judiciary. This places different governmental powers into various branches designed to provide a level of power sharing within a governmental body. This “top-level only” model can break down fundamentally when the goals of the various bodies of government become aligned against the interests of those to be governed.

As an example, let’s consider the recently passed NDAA legislation. This legislation provides a relevant and timely example because it includes undeniably unconstitutional provisions that provide powers to the federal government that are aligned against the citizens. In effect, the legislation allows the federal government to indefinitely detain U.S citizens without trial, a blatant attack on the Fifth Amendment.

How has the separation of power protected the people in this instance? Well, it hasn’t, the bill passed the senate with 93 Senators voting for it, sailed through the house and then was signed immediately by the President. In his signing statement, the President acknowledged the “detention without trial” provisions, indicating that he would never use them. While this statement might sound comforting, it shouldn’t; it clearly proclaimed that the executive branch did indeed have this new power, and it could indefinitely detain citizens at the President’s sole discretion.

The legislative and executive branch, even though they are separate bodies, have failed to provide the check on power necessary to remove these unpopular, unconstitutional and outright dangerous components of the NDAA legislation.

What might happen in the future with the judicial branch? There is now a law on the books in direct opposition to the limitation set forth by the Fifth Amendment. For the immediate future, the executive branch is authorized to detain citizens in ways previously and specifically denied by the Constitution. Regardless of any decision the judicial branch makes in the future, this is the reality for some years. Even if the Supreme Court ultimately gets this right, U.S. citizens will have been exposed to many years, possibly a decade, without a fundamental right to trial. During this time, the President will be free to detain individual citizens for whatever reason, effectively stealing years of their life.

Of course, there is no reason to assume that the Supreme Court will eventually rule this legislation unconstitutional. In practice, leaving the interpretation of a fundamental right in the hands of 9 politically-appointed judges is risky. Jefferson warned:

“… .To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

Clearly, Separation of Powers, although significant, is not the complete framework that our founder’s envisioned for the protection of liberties. In fact, possibly more important than the check on power *within* the federal government, provided by the Separation of Powers; is the check on power *of* the federal government, provided by the various state governments.

State Governments check Federal Power

The United States Constitution gives significant power to the individual state governments. States are not mere provinces set up to take orders from a central authority in Washington DC and execute these orders regionally. States are afforded sovereign powers of their own. In Federalist #45, the powers assigned to the individual states were summarized by James Madison:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

As sovereign entities with their own executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government; states are free to govern without federal influence within the confines of their own state constitutions. In addition to the domestic powers outlined by Madison, states assumed the responsibility to actively limit central government’s natural desire to grow beyond the enumerated powers of the Constitution.In Federalist #28, Alexander Hamilton spoke concisely of the state’s duty to provide a check on the power of a growing central government:

“…the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”

When the federal government signs unconstitutional legislation into law, a more timely solution is required than the slow-moving and centralized federal judicial branch. This is especially true for unconstitutional laws that deny any citizen a basic right. State nullification of these laws is the proper course. States naturally pose an impediment to centralized power, and this competition between the central government and the state government is the key to preserving liberty in such a culturally diverse and regionally large country as the United States.

Interestingly, the recent NDAA legislation shares commonality with the historic Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798; in that both laws attempt to circumvent clear Constitutional rights through standard legislation. In 1798, as a response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Jefferson and Madison, drafted resolutions outlining the proper course states should take when the central government assumes powers outside the powers specifically granted by the Constitution. Jefferson wrote:

“Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; . . . and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorised by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.”

In effect, Jefferson believed that states should reject, or nullify, unconstitutional federal laws through state legislative declaration; and deny federal authority of enforcement within their state boundaries.

State Nullification of NDAA

Become a member and support the TAC!

The NDAA legislation that was signed by President Obama on New Year’s eve. Already, Virginia has introduced and passed out of committee legislation targeting the “indefinite detention” components of NDAA. More on this bill can be found here: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/nullify-the-ndaa-virginia-house-bill-1660/.

In addition, sources close to Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) expect up to ten more states to introduce similar legislation in the near-term. State legislators close to TAC has expressed sentiments strongly against the NDAA.

The Tenth Amendment Center recently released a suggested plan for state legislators seeking to nullify the NDAA in their state. You can help by forwarding this information to your state representative. More about the NDAA: Liberty Preservation Act is available here: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/liberty-preservation-act/