NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto-Proof 39-1 Vote


Michael Boldin
Tenth Amendment Center
February 28, 2012

Today, the Virginia Senate took a firm stand in support of liberty, the Constitution for the United States, and the Constitution of Virginia by voting in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160), the “NDAA Nullification Act.”

The final vote was 39-1.

After a motion to recommit (delay until next year) went down to the wire before being rejected yesterday (report here), groups across the political spectrum activated in support of the legislation, which codifies in law that no agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia – including defense forces and national guard troops, will comply with or assist the federal government in any way under it’s newly claimed powers to arrest and detain without due process.

INTERNMENT: NEVER AGAIN

The bill’s primary sponsor, Delegate Bob Marshall, had this to say in support:

“During World War II, the federal government incarcerated tens of thousands of loyal Japanese Americans in the name of national security. By this bill, Virginia declares that it will not participate in similar modern-day efforts.

Even President Obama had questions about the bill, when he promised the American people that he would not use the unrestrained powers it granted him — but why should we trust any President with such powers?

There are moments in our history when our liberties hang in the balance. This is one of those moments. I urge the Senate…to lead the way in the nation to ensure that Virginia will not cooperate when the Federal Government strays off the reservation with laws that take away the civil liberties of our citizens.”

BRIDGING THE POLITICAL DIVIDE

Last Thursday, the Tenth Amendment Center, in partnership with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Demand Progress held a media conference with experts and legislators from across the political spectrum. On hand were a former Al Gore advisor and a former Reagan administration member. (full report here)

The message was resounding, and echoed by the Jr. Senator from Loudoun Virginia on the floor today, “Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, any law that passes congress that has those provisions should be a deep concern, and I hope that we can all agree on this one issue.”

While the bill doesn’t directly block federal agents from carrying out their new NDAA powers, this is part and parcel of a larger NDAA nullification campaign around the country. Currently 7 local governments have passed resolutions ranging from a denouncement of the federal act in three Colorado counties to requiring noncompliance with it in places like Fairfax, CA and Northampton, MA. And, 7 states are currently considering legislation like Virginia’s – all based off the model legislation provided by the Tenth Amendment Center, the Liberty Preservation Act.

THREE STEPS, MAYBE JUST TWO?

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we define nullification as “any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null, void, or unenforceable in a specific area.” With that definition in mind, we see nullification of the new “kidnapping powers” of the NDAA as a multi-step process.

1. Education - awareness. This is where local and state resolutions come into play. When something is passed, even non-binding, it gets press coverage about the idea that the local and state people have a role to play in this.

2. Non-compliance – as just passed by the Virginia House and Senate, and being considered in various other states and local communities. The message? Your unconstitutional federal act is not welcome here!

Gandhi, Rosa Parks and others didn’t take it beyond there. We recognize that in almost every situation, the federal government relies on states being silent or even fully complicit. Information sharing, logistics, and even national guard troops carrying out orders are activities that could be asked of state and local governments. Could the feds still kidnap at that point if the state refuses compliance? Sure, “legally” nothing has changed. But if 10-15 states and a hundred or so counties and cities are making clear they will not comply and that they consider the act unconstitutional, it’s going to be much tougher for them, if not politically impossible, than if everybody just complied and waited for the courts or another election to “save” them.

3. Resistance and physical interposition – Some, of course, believe that the feds can never be stopped without a physical resistance. But this may not be required if enough states and localities take noncompliance seriously in #2 above. But, we also see the value in running the full spectrum of options from the simplest to the strongest in various parts of the country. In Washington State, the bill there is full non-compliance. Matt Shea and Jason Overstreet, the primary sponsors, feel they can get that moving forward, and hope to follow up with criminal penalties in a future bill. Then, potentially another to require arrest of fed agents for kidnapping could be considered. In Missouri, they’re tracking along the same lines.

In Tennessee, though, the bill being considered right now refers to indefinite detention as a “kidnapping” charge and requires the local sheriffs to stop them. (info here)

NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto Proof 39 1 Vote stop the ndaa1

NEXT STEP FOR VIRGINIA

HB1160 received a minor amendment in the Senate before passage and now goes back to the House for Concurrence. The bill previously passed the house by a vote of 96-4 so it’s expected that the amended version will sail through as well. The Amendment reads as follows:

§ 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or employee of same acting in his official capacity, shall aid an agency of the United States in the unlawful detention of any United States citizen pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81, § 1021).

Delegate Marshall previously reported that Governor Bob McDonnell is opposing this legislation. And, even with such large veto-proof votes in both the House and Senate, Virginia residents are encouraged to take action today. Those living in Virginia are encouraged to contact their Senators with words of thanks for passing HB1160 (at this link) AND the Governor’s office (at this link) in support of this legislation now.

LEGISLATIVE TRACKING

CLICK HERE – to view 4 versions of the model bill, the Liberty Preservation Act, for introduction in your state, city, county or town

CLICK HERE – to track the status of the Liberty Preservation Act around the country.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and onFacebook.

Doc's note...It's about time the people, through their respective States, tell the feral government in Washington to go to hell.

Yep, we worked hard to get this done here in Virgina. I hope this happens in all 50 states and then on to the federal level.

In order for this to happen, we must be willing to write to our delegates and senators. Let them know that you are watching and waiting to see what they are going to do. Get the word out that this exist. Many friggen people are to stupid to know that this is real.

The feds can do their own dirty work anyway. Local boys don't need to get smoked for the feds who don't wanna do their own so called work. I'll leave it at that.

Leo out

It's unclear from this whether the Senate or House version got passed. I wrote my senator urging her to make sure that the Senate version passed because the House version watered it down a bit.

What the hell is the matter with McDonnell that he would oppose this legislation??? And he's supposed to be a small-government Republican. Turd.

Update:

Obama Issues ‘Policy Directive’ Exempting American Citizens From Indefinite Detention


Skeptics fear future administration could still incarcerate US citizens under NDAA

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Despite the fact that it was his administration that specifically demanded the controversial ‘indefinite detention’ provisions of the NDAA be applied to Americans, President Obama has issued a ‘Presidential Policy Directive’ that forbids the law from being used against US citizens.


A “fact sheet” released by the White House last night contains details of a “Presidential Policy Directive” which explains that the administration will not seek to use the so-called ‘kidnapping provision’ of the National Defense Authorization Act to incarcerate American citizens without trial.

“Section 1022 does not apply to U.S. citizens, and the President has decided to waive its application to lawful permanent residents arrested in the United States,” states the White House fact sheet (PDF).

Obama’s PDD contains a number of other circumstances in which people would be exempt from indefinite detention, but the language concerning American citizens states that to be exempt, a US citizen must be “arrested in this country or arrested by a federal agency on the basis of conduct taking place in this country,” meaning Americans arrested abroad could still be kidnapped and held without trial.

The NDAA bill, which was signed into law by President Obama under the radar on New Years Eve while he was on vacation in Kailua, hands the federal government the power to “allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.”

There’s no doubt that this represents a victory for civil libertarians on both sides of the political spectrum, but skeptics will be keen to stress that just because the Obama administration, which could be out of office by this time next year, has indicated it will not indefinitely detain Americans under the NDAA, doesn’t necessarily mean that future administrations will also refrain from doing so.

Indeed, if the administration was so concerned about the indefinite detention provisions, why did it specifically lobby for them to be applied to American citizens in the first place?

As we documented at the time, shortly before the bill was signed into law, Senator Carl Levin revealed that it was the administration which demanded the removal of language that would have protected Americans from the ‘kidnapping’ provisions of the NDAA.

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Don’t expect Obama’s PDD to be the end of the matter. Senators John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) have already indicated that they will argue against exempting American citizens from indefinite detention.

“Although we have not been able to fully examine all the details of these new regulations, they raise significant concerns that will require a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee,” they said in a joint statement. “We are particularly concerned that some of these regulations may contradict the intent of the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress last year.”

In issuing the policy directive, Obama is attempting to head off a potential states’ rights rebellion against the federal government. With Virginia already having passed a bill in the House and Senate that nullifies the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA, Utah has introduced a resolution with the ultimate intention of doing the same, along with several other states.

Doc's note: I think this is just more smoke and mirrors from thee obummer admin. He's hoping the people will go back to sleep and the States will drop their opposition. I don't buy it for one minute.

Flick, McDonnell is one of them.

Leo out

Virginia State Senate Passes Bill Forbidding Indefinite Detention of Americans


‘Council of Governors’ member McDonnell could try to sabotage anti-NDAA law

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, March 9, 2012

The Virginia Senate has passed a law that forbids authorities in the state from using the ‘indefinite detention’ provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act against Americans, but whether or not Governor Bob McDonnell will sign it remains to be seen given the fact that he is a member of Barack Obama’s infamous ‘Council of Governors’, whose role it is to increase military involvement in domestic affairs.

Delegate Bob Marshall discusses his bill and Governor McDonnell’s attempts to sabotage it.

“Today, the Virginia State Senate nearly unanimously passed my bill, HB 1160, to prevent Virginia’s state and local government agencies from cooperating with the federal government in the indefinite detention of Virginians under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (“NDAA”). I am grateful that the vote in the Senate to accede to the bill as passed by the House of Delegates was 37-1,” said a statement by Delegate Bob Marshall, who was the driving force behind the bill.

“Congress, by including this provision in a must pass bill affecting our Armed Forces, made a terrible mistake in empowering this or any future President and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely, without charges, without the chance to confront their accusers, without legal counsel, and without a trial.”

Having already passed the Virginia House by a vote of 96-4 last month, the final bill will be sent to Governor Bob McDonnell. However, McDonnell has already attempted to sabotage the legislation using “secretive, backdoor” tactics, according to Marshall, so whether he agrees to sign the bill without trying to weaken its language remains to be seen.

The fact that McDonnell was included on President Obama’s infamous ‘Council of Governors’ probably explains why he has been so reticent to support the bill.

The executive order which established the Council of Governors (PDF), created a body of ten state governors directly appointed by Obama to work with the federal government to help advance the “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States”.

In other words, McDonnell is a key figure in the effort to expand military involvement in domestic security, which explains why he is opposed to a bill that strips the military of the power to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans at the behest of the federal government.

As Joe Wolverton explains, McDonnell has proved to be a roadblock at every stage of Delegate Marshall’s efforts to pass the anti-NDAA bill.

Virginia is just one of numerous states which are fighting back against the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, which has been tracking the nationwide revolt against the NDAA, a total of nine states have now introduced resolutions or bills in opposition to the indefinite detention of American citizens.

Last week President Obama issued a ‘Presidential Policy Directive’ that forbids the indefinite detention provisions from being used against US citizens.

However, as we documented at the time, it was the administration itself that lobbied for the ‘kidnapping provisions’ to be included in the NDAA in the first place.

Obama’s policy directive has done nothing to calm fears that the law could be used to incarcerate Americans under a future administration, which could be in power in as little as ten months.

Perhaps what is needed is some Title 42 law suits against these Governors who are sworn by Oaths in their state Constitutions to Defend both their State Constitution and the Constitution for the united States of America.
-------------------------------------------------

42 USC § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
-----------------------------------------------
When they function outside of their Oaths the become ordinary citizens and liable for their actions.

NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto-Proof 39-1 Vote

Great,news!Now how'bout nullifying BHO,and the whole capital Hill gang...Then each State Republic send 6 delegates to Philadelphia,PA. and ring that bell again for sweet Liberty!

We in Virginia appreciate your optimism, but we are in a holding pattern. All we can do is wait and see. Don't forget, he wants to be Rommneys VP choice and Rommney supported the NDAA bill.

You can draw your own conclusions. This is a very dangerous place to live, but its home.

Leo out

Used to have a lot of family in the Martinsville area about 200 hundred years ago. Still a few left in SW VA.

Yep, right at the border.

Leo out

And now we have Utah...

Utah State Legislature Unanimously Passes Anti-NDAA Resolution

Written by Joe Wolverton, II
Saturday, 10 March 2012

Earlier this week, lawmakers in Utah stood together and expressed their opposition to the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

As reported earlier in The New American, on February 21, Utah State Senator Todd Weiler (R-Woods Cross, left) submitted SCR 11, a resolution calling for the Congress to “repeal or clarify Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.”

The intent of the resolution was to “express disapproval” of the NDAA, specifically the provisions permitting the indefinite detention of American citizens and the suspension of habeas corpus. The bill calls on members of Congress to uphold their oath of office and “to protect the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution.”

After several weeks of volleying versions of the resolution back and forth between the two houses of the state legislature, lawmakers finally passed a compromise version of SCR 11 without a dissenting vote, sending the measure on to the Governor for his signature.

As originally drafted, SCR 11 expressed “strong disapproval” of sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, calling on the Congress to repeal or clarify the offending provisions.

In fairness, the iteration of the resolution ultimately passed by the legislature was noticeably watered down when compared to the language of the bill as first offered by Senator Weiler. Much of the wording was altered by the Conference Committee and these substitutions likely facilitated the unanimous support from Utah’s legislators.

Specifically, the bill as amended substituted some of the strong language in the original with less strident verbiage more acceptable to members of both parties in both houses of the legislature.

For example, the amended bill removed the call for repeal of the so-called “kidnapping provisions” and eliminated explicit reference to “detention without trial,” replacing that phrase with a broader citation of the due process requirements of the U.S. and Utah Constitutions.

In fact, four times in the final version references to “indefinite detention” have been removed completely from the bill.

Another alteration changed the expression of “strong disapproval” of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA to a remarkably weaker expression of “concern.”

Blanket repeal is no longer the aim of the resolution; rather, Congress is called to “clarify or repeal if necessary” the sections in question.

Finally, rather than “expresses strong disapproval of an interpretation and application of Section 1021 or 1022 of the 2012 NDAA that violates a right,” the unanimously approved version “reaffirms our rights” as “guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution.”

Eventually, the wording was worked enough to persuade every Representative and Senator in the Utah state legislature to vote in the affirmative. When asked by The New American for a response to his colleagues’ passage of his bill, Senator Weiler said, “I am pleased that the Utah House and Senate unanimously passed the resolution reaffirming our constitutional rights and condemning the NDAA.”

At the time he submitted the resolution, Weiler told a reporter from the Salt Lake Tribune that he had a “legitimate fear” that the NDAA would expand the power of the federal government.

While Weiler’s efforts on behalf of the Constitution and the right of states to be self-governing is unquestionably laudable, as a concurrent resolution, the measure is non-binding; however, it does count on the support of two organizations rarely on the same side of political issues — the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Utah Eagle Forum.

“Our concern is in the definition of ‘terrorist,'” Eagle’s Forum’s Dalane England told the Tribune.

In order to more completely understand the importance of the stance taken by Utah, as well as the other measures that have been put forward by other state and local governments, a cursory understanding of the principle of nullification, as well as of the shocking unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA is of value.
Simply stated, nullification is the principle that each state retains the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law that a state deems unconstitutional. Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.

As explained above, Senator Weiler’s resolution is non-binding and is therefore not strictly a nullification of the NDAA. It is, nonetheless, a worthwhile and praiseworthy reminder to the Congress and the President that the states are aware of these federal usurpations and will not idly permit their sovereignty as states to be eviscerated without opposition.

As for the NDAA, on December 31, 2011, with the President's signing of that law, the writ of habeas corpus — a civil right so fundamental to Anglo-American common law history that it predates the Magna Carta — is voidable upon the command of the President of the United States. (A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate requiring that prisoners be brought before a judge or into court to determine whether the government has the right to continue detaining them.) The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is also revocable at the President's will.

So many of the absolute powers provided to the President in the over-500-page NDAA are an affront to liberty. For example, Section 1021 unlawfully places the American military at the disposal of the President for the apprehension, arrest, and detention of those suspected of posing a danger to the "homeland" — without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States. In the language of this legislation, these people are called "covered persons."

Regardless of promises to the contrary, the language of the NDAA places every citizen of the United States within the universe of potential “covered persons.” Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a “belligerent” and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.

As has been chronicled by The New American, Utah is the ninth state to consider some type of legislation calling upon to Congress to repeal the constitutionally offensive provisions of the NDAA that provide for the arrest, interrogation, and indefinite detention of American citizens.

According to Senator Weiler, Governor Gary Herbert has signaled his intent to sign SCR 11, adding his name to the names of Utah’s legislators in openly expressing their defiance of the dictatorial decrees of the unfettered federal government.

Here it is Wednesday and still no word out of Virginia on governor McDonnell's signing this into law.

I'm not surprised.

Leo out

We just want to avoid this:

Aw heck no. We must and will not tolerate that kind of tyranny in our friggen AO. Friggen tough guy with an AK. More like a cowardly deed to me.

And yet no word out of our governors office.

Leo out

Pictured above is a government program.

She must be one of the eggs that got broken to make that omelet.