EDITOR’S NOTE: This testimony was delivered on March 30, 2011 to the State Government Committee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. The legislation in question is HR16 and HB852 – using the power of the state to protect liberty from abuses by the TSA.

Track state legislation to ban unconstitutional TSA practices here

Reprinted from www.cato.org

*******

Chairman Metcalfe, Ranking Member Josephs, and members of the committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am keenly interested in the subject matter of your hearing, and I hope that my testimony will shed some light on your deliberations.

My name is Jim Harper, and I am director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. The Cato Institute is a non-profit research foundation dedicated to preserving the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace. In my role there, I study the unique problems in adapting law and policy to the information age, problems like privacy and security.

I also serve as a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, which advises the DHS Privacy Office and the Secretary of Homeland Security on privacy and related issues. The committee meets quarterly to examine the privacy consequences of homeland security programs, of which there are many.

My service on the DHS Privacy Committee convinced me some years ago that neither security nor privacy would be adequately protected in the United States until we got a handle on the terrorism problem. So for the last few years Cato colleagues of mine — experts in foreign policy and defense — and I have been conducting a project on strategic counterterrorism.

It began in the late summer of 2008, when we convened a group of more than thirty terrorism experts from around the country and world for a meeting in Chicago. Early in 2009, we assembled many of these experts for a two-day public conference in Washington, D.C. And we conducted another conference a year later, reviewing the counterterrorism policies of the current administration after its first year. Our edited volume of essays highlighting select issues in counterterrorism. It is called, Terrorizing Ourselves: Why U.S. Counterterrorism Policy is Failing and How to Fix It.

In addition to my professional duties, I maintain an online resource about federal legislation and spending called WashingtonWatch.com. I speak only for myself today and not for any of the organizations with which I am affiliated or for any colleague. I will highlight two points in my testimony today. One is to encourage you as state leaders to play the role that was prescribed for you in the U.S. Constitution. You are right to press for the interests of your constituents as you perceive them, and you are right not to be cowed by federal authority, even when that puts you in conflict with the federal government. The Constitution intends for you to do this.

Second, I will highlight defects in federal security policy that you can help remedy. The federal Department of Homeland Security has not done the risk management analysis that justifies its policies, including the use of “strip-search machines” as a primary screening tool and the intrusive pat-down “alternative.” You can have confidence that bills like H.R. 16 and H.B. 852 contribute to balance in the national conversation on security and privacy. Protecting your state’s residents against the overreaching that you perceive is well warranted.

Federal-State Relations: Legal Supremacy is Not Omnipotence

Sixteen years ago, one of the things that caused me to move to Washington, D.C. from my native California was the unrelenting growth of the federal government. Power has been accumulating at the federal level since the New Deal era, with unfortunate results for liberty and for governance generally. Election results in 1994 promised a change back toward a constitutional balance that would be better for our country. But it didn’t go all that well. I’m still stuck in Washington, D.C.

Our federal constitution is structured to keep power closer to the common sense that is available in state government, local government, and with the people themselves. Under the Constitution, the federal government is one of limited powers. Its powers are restricted to those listed, or “enumerated,” in the Constitution. Even when it acts under an enumerated power, the federal government must do so in ways that are “necessary and proper” to effectuating a federal power. I am delighted to speak to this particular committee, where I expect you recognize the value of setting policies in Pennsylvania that are appropriate for Pennsylvania, and that are consistent with the values of Pennsylvanians.

The federal power that arguably permits the federal Department of Homeland Security to operate security systems at airports is the Article I, Section 8 power to “provide for the common Defence.” When that language was written, warfare was not purely a formal state-on-state affair — indeed, it was non-state actors who fought the Revolutionary War against the English monarchy — but the power primarily went to defending against foreign governments’ attacks on the territory of the United States. It did not go to defending privately held infrastructure against criminality.

Politically motivated attacks on private infrastructure are perhaps in part a federal responsibility because of their political or geopolitical content. But they are also a state responsibility because they are properly perceived as criminal violence, which the Constitution leaves to the jurisdiction of the states. One of the most important recent federalism cases was U.S. v. Lopez,¹ which held that a federal gun possession law — a criminal law — was not within the power of Congress to pass.

The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause gives the federal government the leading role when it is acting properly under an enumerated power. Proper federal laws preempt conflicting state laws. The federal government also has the “bully pulpit,” not only in the president’s access to media, but in the habit of the media and opinion leaders to look to Washington, D.C. for answers. But the federal government does not have a lock on political power.

You, as state representatives, are closer to the people of Pennsylvania. You understand their interests better than federal officials, far better than the unelected federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. who often presume to direct life in every dimension. The challenge to federal power in H.R. 16 and H.B. 852 are appropriate assertions of state power.

Unfortunately, the constitutional discussion above is not a prediction of how the Supreme Court would rule if a case were presented to it today. It will take several decades — if all goes well — for the courts to start recognizing and enforcing the limits on federal authority, especially in the area of security and counterterrorism.

The legal situation with regard to the Department of Homeland Security’s airport policies is also murky and changing. The TSA operates airport checkpoints under “security directives” that are not publicly available. (“Secret law” is, of course, repugnant to the Constitution and the rule of law.) Accordingly, my discussion of the legalities is tentative. It should not be taken as legal advice for travelers headed to the airport. Instead, it is my understanding of the legal situation for your use in determining how you might act as legislators.

When Congress created the Transportation Security Administration² and later the Department of Homeland Security,³ it did not invest TSA agents with law enforcement officer status. They are not entitled to carry weapons or make arrests. Their police-style uniforms notwithstanding, TSA agents are civilians like you and me.

Because these are not law enforcement officers conducting legal searches, the fiction in operation at the airport is that travelers have consented to search as a condition of travel. Accordingly, on the two occasions when I have been directed to a “strip-search machine” at an airport and have declined that opportunity, I have told the TSA agent proposing to pat me down the extent of my consent to his search. (I do so politely and have not had a problem so far.)

If I am correct in my assessment of the legal situation at the airport, the scope of such a search can be defined in Pennsylvania law as H.B. 852 proposes to do. You are free to define other elements of the interaction, such as by dictating that “stranger” body searches like this must be immediately preceded by the oral granting of consent, for example. This would help educate Pennsylvanians about the legal environment at the airport so that they do not mistake an airport search for a mandatory search by law enforcement personnel.

The one caution I would suggest is that you do not outlaw private, consensual body searches. If people want to play “TSA Agent and Traveler” at home, they should be free to do so! A tighter version of the legislation might define the indecent body search offense as one in which contact is made with a stranger’s intimate areas.

The search that American travelers undergo at the airport is as intimate as what prisoners in American jail cells get. It is shocking that the federal government is willing to treat law-abiding citizens this way.

The reason for the legal fiction I referred to above is because this search practice would probably not pass Fourth Amendment muster. This searching is not limited to cases of reasonable suspicion, and it pushes exceptions to Fourth Amendment rules to the breaking point. The Department of Homeland Security has not shown this search to be reasonable and has not validated its policies with analysis to the extent it should. This leaves it up to you to defend the privacy and rights of Pennsylvanians.

DHS Has Not Justified the Strip-Search/Pat-Down

It is very important to secure the country and travelers from terrorism, as well as all other threats. But the Department of Homeland Security has not done the work necessary to validate the use of “strip-search machines” or the invasive pat-down that is presented as an “alternative.” Risk management is something that DHS officials often speak about, but it is not something that they apparently used before instituting the “strip/grope” policy.

Since before my work with the DHS Privacy Committee and with my Cato Institute colleagues on counterterrorism policy, I have studied risk management and cost/benefit analysis a great deal. I will share with you my assessment of the strip/grope policy using those analytical tools.

Risk Management

Risk management is the identification, assessment, and prioritization of risks, followed by coordinated and economical application of resources to minimize, monitor, and control the probability and/or impact of unfortunate events. It sounds complicated, but we are all risk managers, and we make decisions every day by balancing the risks we perceive against the things we want to achieve. In an area like air transportation, risk management requires more than common sense or “going with your gut,” of course. Risk management means thinking things all the way through.

A formal risk management effort will generally begin with an examination of the thing or process being protected. This is often called “asset characterization.” In airline security, the goal is fairly simple: ensuring that air passengers arrive safely at their destinations — specifically, by ensuring that nobody successfully brings down a plane.

The next step in risk management is to identify and assess risks, often called “risk characterization” or “risk assessment.” The vocabulary of risk assessment is not settled, but there are a few key concepts that go into it:

• Vulnerability is weakness or exposure that could prevent an objective from being reached. Vulnerabilities are common, and having a vulnerability does not damn an enterprise. The importance of vulnerabilities depend on other factors.
• Threat is some kind of actor or entity that might prevent an objective from being reached. When the threat is a conscious actor, we say that it “exploits” a vulnerability. When the threat is some environmental or physical force, it is often called a “hazard.” As with vulnerability, the existence of a threat is not significant in and of itself. A threat’s importance turns on other factors.
• Likelihood is the chance that a vulnerability left open to a threat will materialize as an unwanted event, a development that frustrates the safety, soundness, or security objective. Knowing the likelihood that a threat will materialize is part of what allows risk managers to apportion their responses.
• Consequence is the significance of loss or the impediment to objectives should the threat materialize. Consequences can range from very low to very high. As with likelihood, gauging consequence allows risk managers to focus on the most significant risks.

Analyzing vulnerabilities and threats permits risk managers to make rough calculations about likelihood and consequence. This process will float the most significant risks to the surface. Though these factors are often difficult to measure, a simple formula guides risk assessment:

Likelihood x Consequence = Risk

Events with a high likelihood and consequence should be addressed first, and with the most assets. Those are the highest risks. Events with low likelihood can wait, or they can even be ignored.

The most common error I see in risk management is the propensity to address vulnerabilities rather than full-fledged risks. In late 2009, a bomber’s attempt to take down a plane by concealing explosives in his undergarments exposed a vulnerability. It is possible to sneak a small quantity of explosive through conventional security systems, though not necessarily the needed detonator and not necessarily enough explosive material to take down a plane.

But this says nothing about the likelihood of this happening again — or of it being successful. In hundreds of millions of enplanements each year, this attack has manifested itself once. And it failed. The TSA effort is going after a vulnerability — of that there is no doubt — but it is arguable whether or not it is addressing a significant risk.

After risk assessment, the next step in risk management is choosing responses. Though the concepts and terminology are not settled in this area either, there are four general ways to respond to risk:

• Acceptance – Acceptance of a threat is a rational alternative that is often chosen when the threat has low probability, low consequence, or both.
• Prevention – Prevention is the alteration of the target or its circumstances to diminish the risk of the bad thing happening.
• Interdiction – Interdiction is any confrontation with, or influence exerted on, a threat to eliminate or limit its movement toward causing harm.
• Mitigation – Mitigation is preparation so that, in the event of the bad thing happening, its consequences are reduced.

In its operation, the strip-search/grope combination is an interdiction against any who may try to carry dangerous articles on planes. As to the air transportation system, it might also be conceived of as a preventive measure.

The next analytical lens to look through is benefit-cost analysis, or trade-offs. The goal is to allay risk in a cost-effective way, spending the least amount of money, and incurring the least costs overall, per unit of benefit.

Security Benefits

Security systems involve difficult and complex balancing among many different interests and values. The easiest, by far, is comparing the dollar costs of security measures against the dollar benefits. This is analysis that U.S. Government Accountability Office says the TSA has not done. A March 2010 GAO report says:

[I]t remains unclear whether the AIT [strip-search machine] would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary information GAO has received. . . . In October 2009, GAO also recommended that TSA complete costbenefit analyses for new passenger screening technologies. While TSA conducted a lifecycle cost estimate and an alternatives analysis for the AIT, it reported that it has not conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the original deployment strategy or the revised AIT deployment strategy, which proposes a more than twofold increase in the number of machines to be procured.⁴

If DHS did a cost-benefit analysis, the fact that these machines reveal most articles a person might try to sneak onto a plane appears on the benefit side of the equation. And that is an important benefit.

There are at least two important limitations on the benefit. First, there is an open question as to whether the strip-search machine would successfully detect lower-density material like the explosive PETN. If it does not, the machine’s utility against underpants bombing relies on potential attackers’ ignorance of that to deter their attempts. Second, the benefit of the strip-search/grope is not what it achieves from a baseline of zero, but the marginal security improvement in provides over alternatives like the status quo magnetometer and random pat-downs.

How do you reduce security benefit to something measurable? It’s difficult, but I’ve been mulling a methodology for valuing security against rare attacks in which you assume a motivated attacker that would eventually succeed. By approximating the amount of damage the attack might do and how long it would take to defeat the security measure, one can roughly estimate its value.

Say, for example, that a particular attack might cause one million dollars in damage. Delaying it for a year is worth $50,000 at a 5% interest rate. Delaying for a month an attack that would cause $10 billion in damage is worth about $42 million. It is best to assume that any major attack will happen only once, as it will produce responses that prevent it happening twice.⁵

Of course, one must consider “risk transfer.” That’s the shifting of risks from one target to another — say, from planes to buildings. (An organization like the Department of Homeland Security would regard this as lowering the benefit of a security measure, while an airline would be indifferent to it — unless it owned the building…) There is also the creation of new risks, such as the possible health effects of the strip-search machines. This brings us to the cost side of the ledger.

Costs

On the cost side of the ledger, the easy things to measure includes the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars that must be spent on strip-search machines themselves. As much or more money will be spent on an ongoing basis to operate the machines. My observation is that it takes three people to operate one strip-search machine: a guide, an analyst to review the image, and a person to do the secondary pat-down which occurs regularly (though it would occur less over time). On a nationwide scale, this is hundreds of millions of dollars per year spent on TSA employees.

The value of travelers’ time is also important. This hasn’t received much discussion, but as more and more strip-search machines come into use, there will be more discussion of how much time they consume compared to magnetometers.

Reviewing tape of TSA checkpoints reveals that passing through the machines takes at least seven seconds per passenger. Variations in the time it takes to traverse the security checkpoint require all travelers to increase the amount of time they spend at the airport as a cushion against the risk of missing flights, which can cost many hours per occurence. If each of 350 million trips in a year results in an additional minute at the airport to accommodate the vagaries of the strip/grope, five to six million person hours at the airport will be wasted, a cost of $145 million per year if we value travelers’ time at $25 per hour.

It is more difficult is to balance interests like privacy and dignity against security benefits. The legislation we are discussing in the hearing today is evidence that the security procedures do not comport with the American people’s sense of privacy. If the airport strip/grope does not survive a dollars-to-dollars cost/benefit analysis, and if it also violates privacy, this is an inappropriate policy. What you do to reduce its privacy costs and right the balance is well worth considering.

My own view is that the strip/grope is security excess. If I had my way, I would choose the airlines and airports that do not go to this extreme. I do not get to have my way, and neither do you if you prefer a different security/privacy mix, because the federal government has commandeered airline security from the airports and airlines who should properly have responsibility for it.

The TSA should be abolished and responsibility for security restored to airlines and airports. Their experimentation could blend security with privacy, convenience, and comfort, improving the travel experience overall while restoring liberty to American travelers. In the meantime, your effort to provide a counterweight to federal overreaching in this area is a welcome protection for Pennsylvanians and an example for state leaders across the nation to emulate.

As director of information policy studies, Jim Harper works to adapt law and policy to the unique problems of the information age, in areas such as privacy, telecommunications, intellectual property, and security. Harper is a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee and he recently co-edited the book Terrorizing Ourselves: How U.S. Counterterrorism Policy Is Failing and How to Fix It. He has been cited and quoted by numerous print, Internet, and television media outlets, and his scholarly articles have appeared in the Administrative Law Review, the Minnesota Law Review, and the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. Harper wrote the book Identity Crisis: How Identification Is Overused and Misunderstood. Harper is the editor of Privacilla.org, a Web-based think tank devoted exclusively to privacy, and he maintains online federal spending resource WashingtonWatch.com. He holds a J.D. from UC Hastings College of Law.

¹ 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
² Congress created the TSA within the Department of Transportation in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Pub.L. No. 107-71 (Nov. 19, 2001).
³ Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, transferring the TSA to that new agency, in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub.L. No. 107-296 (Nov. 25, 2002).
⁴ United States Government Accountability Office, “TSA Is Increasing Procurement and Deployment of the Advanced Imaging Technology, but Challenges to This Effort and Other Areas of Aviation Security Remain,” GAO-10-484T (Mar. 17, 2010)http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10484t.pdf
⁵ The 9/11 “commandeering” attack on air travel is an instructive example. By late morning on September 11, 2001, passengers and crew recognized that cooperation with hijackers contributed to the deadliness of attacks rather than saving their lives. They spontaneously changed the security practice to meet the new threat, and the 9/11 attacks permanently changed the posture of air passengers toward hijackers, along with hardened cockpit doors bringing the chance of another commandeering attack on air travel very close to nil.

Introduction

It might be instructive to look at how Pennsylvania dealt with the issue of slavery in our early history.  This topic is useful, because in retrospect it is perfectly clear which side was morally right.  So, this week I learned a little bit about the history of anti-slavery laws and sentiment in early Pennsylvania.  I have only scratched the surface, so we will probably revisit this topic in the future.  It may be that Pennsylvania’s activities, in support of Liberty for blacks in early America, can contribute to our Tenth Amendment roadmap for the future.

The first ever American resolution against slavery was issued from Pennsylvania in 1688.  The University of Houston quotes the Germantown Petition against slavery as saying, “…In Europe there are many oppressed for conscience-sake; and here there are those oppressed which are of a black colour….Pray, what thing in the world can be done worse…”.  The Germantown Petition, although largely ineffective, was passed among the Quaker communities in Pennsylvania.

Anti-slavery sentiment in Pennsylvania grew during the following years.  Numerous writings against slavery, by various Quaker authors, were published in Ben Franklin’s Philadelphia newspaper.  Pennsylvania abolished slavery, using a gradual phase-out starting in 1780, and George Washington commented in 1786 that “once slaves got to the Pennsylvania/West Jersey area, they became nearly impossible to find and retrieve”.

Between the American Revolution and The Civil War, two fugitive slave laws were passed by the federal government in order to attempt to ensure that slavers were able to forcibly return any slaves who had escaped to other states.  Pennsylvania met these federal laws with laws of our own, designed to insure liberty for the escaped slaves and to nullify the unjust federal legislation within Pennsylvania’s borders.

Federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

In 1793, the first Federal Fugitive Slave Act (FFSA) was issued.  Wikipedia says that this act established a legal mechanism by which fugitive slaves could be seized, brought before a magistrate, then forcibly returned to their state of origin.

Pennsylvania’s legislative resistance to this law apparently began in the 1820s.  There are conflicting claims about Pennsylvania’s legislation in that decade, but the years 1820 and 1826 are commonly mentioned.  The University of Pittsburgh says that in 1820, Pennsylvania passed a law to prevent state officials from enforcing the FFSA.   In 1826, after receiving an appeal from Maryland to implement the FFSA, Pennsylvania responded by passing another law which is variously referred to as a Personal Liberty Act or a state Fugitive Slave Act and “After enactment of the 1826 law, there was virtually no way for a slaveholder to recapture a fugitive slave in Pennsylvania and be safe from prosecution as a kidnapper”.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania

Supreme Court Justice Taney

According to many sites, including TheDish.Org, a Maryland slave named Margaret Morgan escaped to Pennsylvania in 1832.  A warrant was received from a Pennsylvania district justice to forcibly return her to Maryland, but the local constable refused to honor it.  She and her children were then abducted and taken to Maryland by several Maryland men, including Edward Prigg.  Pennsylvania charged the men who abducted her with kidnapping and the dispute made its way to the Supreme Court in 1842.

In the decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the FFSA was constitutional and Pennsylvania could not prevent federal agents from enforcing it.  The court also ruled, however, that Pennsylvania state officials could not be compelled to enforce the FFSA.

Personal Liberty Laws and a New FFSA

In 1847, Pennsylvania passed a new Personal Liberty Law.   The University of Pittsburgh says, “This law provided sanctions for purchasing or removing free Blacks with the intention of reducing them to slaves; prohibited state officials from accepting jurisdiction over cases arising under the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793; provided penalties for claimants seizing slaves in a violent, tumultuous, and unreasonable manner”.   The AfroLumens Project says that this law was carefully crafted to comply with the Prigg v. Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.  Around that time, New York, Vermont and Ohio passed similar Personal Liberty Laws.

The federal reaction to the new set of Personal Liberty Laws was to pass the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.  This law provided for the seizure of blacks without any due process at all.  As a result, even free blacks were suddenly at risk of capture based on nothing more substantial than an accusation.  This, in turn led to more Personal Liberty laws from many of the North Eastern States including Massachusetts in 1855.

A Proposed Compromise

In 1860, a Virginia Newspaper carried an editorial proposing a compromise to save the Union.  In this editorial, they suggested that Pennsylvania could save the Union by repealing our Personal Liberty Law, saying,

“There will probably be a separation of one or more States from the Union before the obnoxious laws passed by some of the Northern States can possibly be repealed.  But the separation will not be final if Pennsylvania, responding to the patriotic suggestions of Virginia, shall set her sister States of the North the example of repealing an act conceived in unreasonable hostility to the South, and beyond all question violative of the just rights of the people of fifteen sovereign States.”

Lessons for Pennsylvania Today

We all know what happened next.  A brutal and bloody war was fought and slavery came to an end.  We should be careful about reading too much altruism into the federal government’s motives in that conflict though.  Ending slavery in America was merely a happy side-effect.  President Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, wrote in an 1862 letter to Horace Greely,

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.  What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union”.

Then, as now, Washington’s primary goal was to maintain political dominance.

From this history, we can learn a few things which may be helpful when we think about nullification in the modern context.  First, it is indisputable that Pennsylvania’s Personal Liberty Laws were right and the federal government was wrong.  The federal government was attempting to take away the blacks’ inherent right to liberty.  Pennsylvania stood on the side of natural law.  It is crystal clear that nullification is a valid course of action for a state pursuing a just cause.

As far as tactics, the various states used different tactics in their Personal Liberty Laws.  Some of the legislation simply said that state officials need not assist with enforcing the FFSA; Other legislation made it illegal for state officials to assist with enforcement and still other legislation made even Federal action illegal within the state.  A variety of tactics like these should be kept in our nullification tool box.

From Prigg v. Pennsylvania, we learn that we can count on the federal government to take the side of the federal government in any particular dispute.  From the 1860 VA Newspaper editorial we learn that the Supreme Court does not give the final answer.  Regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1842, Pennsylvania apparently continued to successfully hinder abductions for another 18 years.

Lastly, we see from the 1850 FFSA which followed the 1847 Personal Liberty Law, that the initial response from the federal government will be to escalate when challenged.  Only through persistent challenges from numerous states will the federal government eventually wind down.  Pennsylvania resisted the federal government on this issue for somewhere around forty years.  Successful nullification requires commitment.

Natural Rights

Before wrapping up, I would also like to redirect slightly for a final point about natural rights. Some of today’s writers seem to think that our rights are granted and revoked at the whim of the government.  Examining the question of slavery makes the error in that viewpoint clear.  Was slavery reprehensible because of the thirteenth amendment or was slavery reprehensible because men’s inherent rights to Liberty were being violated?

Those who say that our rights come to us at the pleasure of government must also believe that if a majority votes to repeal the thirteenth amendment, than slavery could be sanctioned.  This is self-evidently wrong to anyone with a functioning conscience.  It is clear from this example that our rights are natural possessions which cannot be granted or withdrawn by government edict.

The government’s role is to be a protector of rights, not a giver of them.

Steve Palmer [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

Pennsylvania State Representative Sam Rohrer has introduced the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB1988) for consideration in the state legislature.    The bill is “An Act prohibiting certain firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition from being subject to Federal law or Federal regulation.”

HB1988 currently has 48 additional co-sponsors, and according to FirearmsFreedomAct.com, is similar to bills recently enacted into law in both Montana and Tennessee.

While the bill seems to focus solely on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government.  It specifically states:

The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

Rohrer, in a recent letter to Pennsylvania House Members, addressed the issue of the commerce clause:

Under the current, expansive interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, it is permissible for the federal government to regulate the sale of goods that are manufactured and sold exclusively within a state’s borders. Effectively, the federal courts hold that if a product might possibly find its way into streams of interstate commerce, federal laws to regulate that product are appropriate. The product need not actually be sold between states.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a farmer who was fined by the federal government for growing too much wheat. Effectively, the argument in Wickard v. Filburn was that the wheat he grew and consumed himself would lead to decreased wheat sales in other states, so it fell under federal jurisdiction because of the interstate commerce clause.

As recently as 2005 (Gonzales v. Raich), the U.S. Supreme Court cited Wickard as standing for the proposition that “Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for interstate sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.”

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, wheat (in Wickard) and medical marijuana (in Raich) are completely indistinguishable from such products made and sold in interstate commerce, so federal regulation is appropriate.

Under my bill, the policy of this Commonwealth would be that firearms and firearm accessories manufactured and exclusively sold in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, carrying the brand “Made in Pennsylvania” (all clear indicators of intrastate commerce), would be subject only to state law.

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed State Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010, and up to 10 states may consider similar Amendment proposals next session.   And, thirteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances.

While some advocates and legal theorists concede that a 10th Amendment federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.

In the past 2 years, nearly two dozen state legislatures passed resolutions and laws refusing to implement the 2005 Real ID Act.   Because of this, and without congressional repeal, The Bush-era law is effectively null and void.

Some advocates of these efforts say it doesn’t matter whether or not the federal government agrees, or even if it threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma.  Gary Marbut, author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, took this position in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center:

“We’re not depending on permission from federal judges to be able to effectuate our state-made guns bills.  And, we’re working on other strategies to wrest essential and effective power from the federal government and put it where it belongs.“

Whether or not state legislators have the backbone to resist if federal officials strongly disagree remains to be seen.  But either way, as nullification efforts spread, it points to a growing state-level rebellion to the federal government.

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Following the recent grand jury’s announcement that more than 45 people have been charged with issuing fraudulent drivers’ licenses, Representative Sam Rohrer, prime sponsor of legislation to outlaw Real ID in Pennsylvania, issued the following statement:

“This most recent debacle highlights my long-standing concerns with government entities taking and storing an individual’s personally identifying information, often without their knowledge or consent. PennDOT has lost credibility over this fiasco; no driver can feel safe knowing that his or her personal information, including social security number and biometric data, is vulnerable to this kind of misconduct.”

“In another example of the state yielding personal, constitutional rights to the federal government for the sake of federal funds, Pennsylvania adopted a facial recognition program with the stated intent to eliminate fraudulent or duplicate licenses. If we cannot trust PennDOT to hire honest employees at this most basic level of their security, how can we trust any government agency with any of our personal information?”

“Your security system is only as strong as the people in charge of it. I remain opposed to intrusive technology that not only doesn’t catch the bad guys, but also compromises the innocent citizens and takes away their privacy rights. I call once again on Pennsylvania to stand up for the rights of Pennsylvanians to be secure in their persons. We simply cannot allow innocent citizens to have their personal information open to misuse at the very lowest levels.”

The Real ID Act of 2005 was passed as part of a tsunami relief bill, and mandated states comply with several federal guidelines in the issuing of state drivers’ licenses, including the use of biometric information. Rohrer introduced legislation this session, House Bill 1443, to join states across the nation in legislatively refusing to participate in the federal program.

Read the full text of HB1443 below:

AN ACT Prohibiting the Commonwealth from participation in the Federal REAL ID Act of 2005 and other related laws; and providing for the authority of the Governor and Attorney General to file certain legal challenges.

The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows:

Section 1.  Short title.

This act shall be known and may be cited as the REAL ID and Biometric and Economic Privacy Act.

Section 2.  Definitions.

The following words and phrases when used in this act shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

“Biometric data.”  Information relating to a biological characteristic of an individual that makes that individual unique from any other individual.

(1)  The term includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(i)  Fingerprints, palm prints and other means for measuring or recording ridge pattern or fingertip characteristics.

(ii)  Facial feature pattern characteristics, excluding any low resolution photographic image of a face.

(iii)  Voice data collected for comparing live speech with a previously created speech model of an individual’s voice.

(iv)  Iris recognition data containing color or texture patterns or codes.

(v)  Keystroke dynamics, measuring pressure applied to key pads.

(vi)  Hand geometry, measuring hand characteristics, including the shape and length of fingers, in three dimensions.

(vii)  Retinal scans, reading through the pupil to measure blood vessels lining the retina.

(viii)  Deoxyribonucleic acid or ribonucleic acid.

(2)  The term does not include a handwritten signature.

“Compromise.”  Any disclosure of information except:

(1)  A disclosure to a court or law enforcement agency pursuant to arrest or indictment.

(2)  A disclosure to any law enforcement agency if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime.

(3)  A disclosure authorized by any Federal statute finally enacted on or before May 10, 2005.

(4)  A disclosure authorized by any state statute finally enacted on or before the effective date of this section.

“Economic privacy.”  The privacy of an individual that relates to a right, privilege or reasonable expectation that certain information is required by law to be held confidential or is otherwise protected from unauthorized disclosure to the public.

“Low resolution photographic image of a face.”  A photographic image of a face or a portion of a face with a resolution no greater than necessary for human identification and verification. The term does not include a photo image with a resolution of more than 30 pixels between eye centers or any image with a resolution that enables the extraction of biometric data.

“REAL ID Act of 2005.”  Division B of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and the Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13, 119 Stat. 302).

Section 3.  Participation in the REAL ID Act of 2005.

Neither the Governor nor the Department of Transportation or any other Commonwealth agency shall participate in the compliance of any provision of the REAL ID Act of 2005.

Section 4.  Participation in other related laws.

Neither the Governor nor the Department of Transportation or any other Commonwealth agency shall participate in the compliance with any Federal law, regulation or policy that would compromise the economic privacy or biometric data of any resident of this Commonwealth.

Section 5.  Legal challenge.

Either the Governor or the Attorney General may file an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to challenge the constitutionality or legality of the REAL ID Act of 2005.

Section 6.  Effective date.

This act shall take effect in 60 days.

Join Rep. Sam Rohrer

10th Amendment Rally for the State of Independence
Monday, March 16, at noon
Main Capitol Rotunda
Harrisburg, PA

Click here for directions.