Will California say NO to NDAA? Nullification catching fire across the nation

blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...

Today, the California Public Safety Committee voted unanimously in favor of Assembly Bill 351 (AB351), the California Liberty Preservation Act.

Introduced by Republican Assemblymember Tim Donnelly, AB351 is a strong stand against “indefinite detention” as supposedly authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. It declares such federal power to be unconstitutional and also requires the entire state to refuse to enforce or assist its implementation. A broad coalition officially supported the legislation and moved the normally partisan, and strongly democratic committee to support the republican-introduced legislation. AB351 was supported by the ACLU, Tenth Amendment Center, San Francisco 99% coalition, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the Libertarian Party of California – and many others.

AB351 establishes the proper constitutional role by first citing the 10th Amendment as limiting the power of the federal government as to that which has been delegated to it and nothing more.

Guess what? Tim Donnelly is running for California Governor in 2014. Imagine how much influence California would have with a liberty-minded captain steering the ship? A little tidbit, he voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. The spirit of intellectual revolution is alive and well.


Here is a map of all of the NDAA nullification activities throughout the country:
tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com...

Pretty amazing, how will you get involved?

reply to post by eLPresidente


I’ve been saying for a while now that the states have the power to say NO to laws deemed unconstitutional. This is the way we’re going to take our country back; law by law; one state at a time. The only thing better (quicker) would be secession.

Nice find! Though I don’t think ANYONE is up to the task of fixing all of CA's problems.

All politics are cyclical 2016 will see a swing back to center as a result of this current adnministration,which is burning bridges rapidly.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


“Center” won’t be far enough of a swing to fix the problems we’ll have by then IMO.

Besides, Hillary isn’t a centrist.

If the states haven't stood up to these tyrannical power grabs by the time she takes the helm they never will.

reply to post by eLPresidente
That is surprising news, but I am glad that the state of California is finally standing up for themselves instead of just doing what the bleeding heart Hollywood liberals tell them to do.

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

That is surprising news, but I am glad that the state of California is finally standing up for themselves instead of just doing what the bleeding heart Hollywood liberals tell them to do.

California has a supermajority of democrats and is (along with New York) the leading state of raising taxes and decreasing civil liberties while government and debt increases. Our governor is considered conservative compared to the state's legislative body and he's a democrat for goodness sakes.

California is far from a properly functioning state (whatever that means) but Tim Donnelly is a Republican and he is out civil liberty(ing) and out progressive(ing) the progressives/liberals.

This is the new wave of libertarian conservatism, the longer people are blinded by the two party paradigm, the more they will get left behind.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

I’ve been saying for a while now that the states have the power to say NO to laws deemed unconstitutional. This is the way we’re going to take our country back; law by law; one state at a time. The only thing better (quicker) would be secession.

Nice find!

Though I don’t think ANYONE is up to the task of fixing all of CA's problems.

Actually they don't.

The Supremecy Clause, affirmed many times by the Supreme Court, says they don't. Can you imagine the problems if States could just pick and choose which federal laws they wanted to follow?

It would basically be the end of the Union.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

I’ve been saying for a while now that the states have the power to say NO to laws deemed unconstitutional. This is the way we’re going to take our country back; law by law; one state at a time. The only thing better (quicker) would be secession.

Nice find!

Though I don’t think ANYONE is up to the task of fixing all of CA's problems.

Actually they don't.

The Supremecy Clause, affirmed many times by the Supreme Court, says they don't. Can you imagine the problems if States could just pick and choose which federal laws they wanted to follow?

It would basically be the end of the Union.

edit on 9-4-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)

I think the keywords were "laws deemed unconstitutional".

Yes, states can disregard federal laws that are unconstitutional. That is hardly states "picking and choosing".

Originally posted by defuntion

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

I’ve been saying for a while now that the states have the power to say NO to laws deemed unconstitutional. This is the way we’re going to take our country back; law by law; one state at a time. The only thing better (quicker) would be secession.

Nice find!

Though I don’t think ANYONE is up to the task of fixing all of CA's problems.

Actually they don't.

The Supremecy Clause, affirmed many times by the Supreme Court, says they don't. Can you imagine the problems if States could just pick and choose which federal laws they wanted to follow?

It would basically be the end of the Union.

edit on 9-4-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)

I think the keywords were "laws deemed unconstitutional".

Yes, states can disregard federal laws that are unconstitutional. That is hardly states "picking and choosing".

Only the Supreme Court can deem a law unconstitutional. Look at it like this. Suppose there is a federal law and one state says it is unconstitutional and another says it is constitutional.

What do you do? Let them have a mini-civil-war to decide it?

Of course not.

What if California just decides that the right to negotiate treaties by the President is unconstitutional and they decide to sell military bases to China to get out of debt?

Your ok with that? This nullification movement is about the dumbest thing I've seen in a very long time.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Only the Supreme Court can deem a law unconstitutional.

Exactly.

And, any state....
Any person can take a case all the way to the supreme court to get that done.

Originally posted by defuntion

Originally posted by Hopechest
Only the Supreme Court can deem a law unconstitutional.

Exactly.

And, any state....
Any person can take a case all the way to the supreme court to get that done.

That's not what nullification is about. Its about a State simply saying they believe a law is unconstitutional and not having to obey it. Nullification people believe it ends there, the Supreme Court has no authority over their decision.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

I’ve been saying for a while now that the states have the power to say NO to laws deemed unconstitutional. This is the way we’re going to take our country back; law by law; one state at a time. The only thing better (quicker) would be secession.

Nice find!

Though I don’t think ANYONE is up to the task of fixing all of CA's problems.

Actually they don't.

The Supremecy Clause, affirmed many times by the Supreme Court, says they don't. Can you imagine the problems if States could just pick and choose which federal laws they wanted to follow?

It would basically be the end of the Union.

edit on 9-4-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)

Aaaaaccttually....



www.tomwoods.com...

Here’s what the people were told it meant at the state ratifying conventions, which is what matters. (I’ll be a sport and not even mention the proto-nullification arguments made at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, which settle the argument, though you can get the story in my Nullification or in Kevin Gutzman’s James Madison and the Making of America.)

Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s convention: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added).

In Federalist #33, Hamilton added: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”

Thomas McKean, at the Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states” (emphasis added).

James Iredell, at the First North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”

reply to post by eLPresidente


Actually what was meant or said at the Convention means absolutely nothing. What matters is how the Supreme Court interprets it today.

As we've seen throughout the Courts history, they often change their views on the same issue multiple times depending on who's sitting on the bench.

This would be the fault of the Framers themselves for not being explicitly clear in their meaning in the first place. They did leave us with a bit of a mess in regards to the Constitution and it makes one wonder if they did this on purpose because they simply couldn't come to an agreement on hardly anything.

reply to post by seabag

I’ve been saying for a while now that the states have the power to say NO to laws deemed unconstitutional.

Originally posted by defuntion

I think the keywords were "laws deemed unconstitutional".

Yes, states can disregard federal laws that are unconstitutional. That is hardly states "picking and choosing".

"Deemed unconstitutional" by whom exactly?

The State Legislature? No they don't.

The local party organization?, No, they don't.

The local Sheriff? No, they don't.

The local school board? No, they don't.

You? No, they don't.

The Supreme Court? Yes, they do.

reply to post by Hopechest

This nullification movement is about the dumbest thing I've seen in a very long time.

You might think it’s stupid but as the OP pointed out – it’s happening; Heathcare, Cap-and-Trade, Medical Marijuana, gun laws, NDAA, etc.

States are saying NO!!

People need to stop worshipping at the altar of the federal government! The federal government derives its power from the states. People who don’t believe in the 10th amendment feed this evil, out of control federal machine.

State sovereignty trumps federal usurpation!

First, watch this to get a history lesson on what nullification really was for:




Those of you who criticize nullification will be quick to ZIP IT when you find out that nullification was first used and originated from the states harboring escaped slaves AGAINST the wishes of the federal government and using nullification to protect themselves.

You can have Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to thank for nullification.


Now the states are rejecting the federal/Obama administration power grab to kidnap Americans without due process and you say only the supreme court can rule on this?

Seems like some of you guys just don't get it but what are you going to do? disagree on the internet? Hold a protest AGAINST the NDAA nullifiers? Call the US Marshal? Please...you're on the wrong side of history here.

Florida senate just passed anti-NDAA nullification legislation 39-0

Nullification of NDAA, Obamacare, gun control and more is catching on in many states red and blue, I don't think a US President's domestic policies as a whole have ever been met with so much resistance.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Getting a bit fed up reading this whole scenario of detaining people without trial. When will all the American people fully see for themselves you're current (said loosely) government doesn't care for you. Time to rise folks, retake what you fought for with blood and misery and show why america leads the world.

I'm strongly against the NDAA and I think it's great that States are taking a stance on this critical issue however, they can't nullify the law... only SCOTUS can. This is a law that ultimately will be ruled on by SCOTUS, States being strongly opposed should factor in greatly with the Justices. Keep going!

HELL YEAH!!! That's what I like to hear. Ron Paul will remain a rallying cry for many years. I will leave the 3 RP bumperstickers on my car for the duration of the life of my automobile. Long Live Liberty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!