Gov. Gary Herbert signed a bill Friday that demands the federal government relinquish control of public lands in Utah by 2014, setting the table for a potential legal battle over millions of acres in the state.
House Bill 148, which easily passed the Legislature, is saddled with a warning from legislative attorneys that there is a high probability it will be found unconstitutional. But Republican lawmakers and Herbert are optimistic about their chances in court, especially if they can persuade other western states to pass similar legislation.
Ideally, state and federal officials should work together to improve access and increase development opportunities and improve conservation on public lands, Herbert said. Alternatively, the state’s congressional delegation would be able to work through Congress to give the state more control.
If those approaches fail, Herbert said a lawsuit to answer the constitutional question needs to remain an option.
“It’s not a slam dunk, but there is legal reasoning and a rational thought process,” Herbert said. “But this is the first step in a long journey. There is a lot of education needed to raise awareness.”
Opponents, including Utah Democrats and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said the bill is not only unconstitutional but bad public policy. If implemented, they said, it could eliminate important protections from development and vehicle use for wildlife refuges, forests and other sensitive areas.
“The state has proven itself time and again to be a bad manager of public lands ... This is a political stunt,” said David Garbett, an attorney with the environmental group. “It’s amazing that in one quixotic act they’ve offended the U.S. Constitution, the state constitution and the state’s enabling act.”
Legal experts have also said the state has no standing, noting that Utah, Arizona and other states passed similar legislation during the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1970s and 1980s.
So far, only Arizona has joined the fight, with legislation that has passed the state Senate. State Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, who sponsored the measure, said it’s designed to put the federal government on notice.
Melvin said federal regulations are killing industries like mining and timber, and the state could collect more money in property taxes if some of that land is sold.
The sponsor of the Utah law, Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, said the issue carries weight on a national scale and is extremely important to the entire region.
“This isn’t just a matter of chest-thumping in Utah,” Ivory said. “It’s time for us to stand as the model for the Western states, and for the nation, to show what it means to be self-reliant and free.”
At the core of the issue in all of the states is limited access to federal land, which hurts energy development, recreation and grazing. There are approximately 28 million acres of federal land in Utah, accounting for about 50 percent of the state. State lawmakers claim the federal lands cost the state millions of dollars every year, although no comprehensive studies have quantified those losses.
The Utah bill exempts national parks, military installations, Native American reservations and congressionally approved wilderness areas and monuments. It primarily focuses on lands controlled by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
Most notably, the state would lay claim to the 1.9-million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah, which President Bill Clinton designated in 1996. Since that declaration, state officials and residents of the rural area, which is dominated by red rock landscapes, have waged an endless battle with federal authorities over land use.
“The current situation is not what was intended to become of the West, yet greedy Washington bureaucrats have decided that hoarding land in the federal estate is more important than education,” said U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah. “Like most Utahans, I disagree.”
Showing posts with label 10th Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 10th Amendment. Show all posts
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Tn NDAA Nullification Bill To Arrest Feds On Kidnapping Charges
State and local resistance to the detention provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act continues to grow, rapidly emerging as a nationwide movement.
The Tennessee legislature will consider HB1629 and SB2669 in the 2012 session. The legislation would effectively nullify the detention provisions in the NDAA and would also require federal agents making an arrest in the Volunteer State for any reason to first obtain written permission from the county sheriff.
This bill declares that any federal law purporting to require local or state law enforcement agencies to act at the direction of the federal government or the United States military is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state. This bill further declares that any federal law purporting to give federal agents or employees, including any members of the United States military, the authority of any state or local law enforcement agency of this state, without the express permission of this state, is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and is declared to be invalid in this state.
The act takes aim at indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA. Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey called language in the NDAA vague and overbroad, pointing out that Americans should never simply trust in the good intentions and moral clarity of the president or federal judges to protect their rights.
“It falls on the states to step in and protect their citizens,” he said. “I can’t imagine a more clear-cut application of state and local interposition as a check on federal power. What could be a more palpable, deliberate and dangerous unconstitutional act than the federal government indefinitely detaining an American citizen without due process?”
The Tennessee bill also “makes it a Class E felony for any official, agent, or employee of the United States government to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal law, order, rule or regulation that is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution,” and includes provisions for kidnapping charges if a federal agent were to detain a U.S. citizen in Tennessee under the NDAA.
Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) and Rep. Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville) sponsor the House version of the bill. Sen. Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) sponsors the Senate bill.
The Volunteer state joins Washington and Virginia considering legislation to nullify detention provisions in the NDAA. And local governments have also stepped up, including El Paso and Fremont Counties in Colorado. While some argue the NDAA doesn’t apply to American citizens, Maharrey said that notion should not stop state and local governments from following James Madison’s admonition to interpose and draw a line in the sand.
“If what supporters say is true and the NDAA does not authorize indefinite detention of Americans, what is the harm in this legislation? Why would anybody oppose it? It does nothing but serve notice that state and local officials will not sit back and allow the federal government to exercise unconstitutional powers – powers supporters claim don’t exist anyway. It simply affirms a fence that supposedly already exists.
The only rational I can find for opposing this bill is if they really do want the option of detaining Americans without due process to remain open,” he said. “You can only oppose this legislation if you accept the idea that the federal government has the authority to do whatever it wants with absolutely no check on its actions – Constitution be damned. If you ask me, that’s a lot scarier than whatever terrorist threat they claim to be protecting me from.”
TAC executive Michael Boldin said he expects other states to soon follow the lead of Tennessee, Virginia and Washington.
“We have pretty strong indications that Rhode Island, Utah, Maine, New Jersey, Oklahoma and other states will be introducing similar legislation soon. This is just a start – and activists all over the country need to contact state legislators right now to voice their support.”
The Tennessee legislature will consider HB1629 and SB2669 in the 2012 session. The legislation would effectively nullify the detention provisions in the NDAA and would also require federal agents making an arrest in the Volunteer State for any reason to first obtain written permission from the county sheriff.
This bill declares that any federal law purporting to require local or state law enforcement agencies to act at the direction of the federal government or the United States military is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state. This bill further declares that any federal law purporting to give federal agents or employees, including any members of the United States military, the authority of any state or local law enforcement agency of this state, without the express permission of this state, is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and is declared to be invalid in this state.
The act takes aim at indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA. Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey called language in the NDAA vague and overbroad, pointing out that Americans should never simply trust in the good intentions and moral clarity of the president or federal judges to protect their rights.
“It falls on the states to step in and protect their citizens,” he said. “I can’t imagine a more clear-cut application of state and local interposition as a check on federal power. What could be a more palpable, deliberate and dangerous unconstitutional act than the federal government indefinitely detaining an American citizen without due process?”
The Tennessee bill also “makes it a Class E felony for any official, agent, or employee of the United States government to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal law, order, rule or regulation that is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution,” and includes provisions for kidnapping charges if a federal agent were to detain a U.S. citizen in Tennessee under the NDAA.
Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) and Rep. Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville) sponsor the House version of the bill. Sen. Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) sponsors the Senate bill.
The Volunteer state joins Washington and Virginia considering legislation to nullify detention provisions in the NDAA. And local governments have also stepped up, including El Paso and Fremont Counties in Colorado. While some argue the NDAA doesn’t apply to American citizens, Maharrey said that notion should not stop state and local governments from following James Madison’s admonition to interpose and draw a line in the sand.
“If what supporters say is true and the NDAA does not authorize indefinite detention of Americans, what is the harm in this legislation? Why would anybody oppose it? It does nothing but serve notice that state and local officials will not sit back and allow the federal government to exercise unconstitutional powers – powers supporters claim don’t exist anyway. It simply affirms a fence that supposedly already exists.
The only rational I can find for opposing this bill is if they really do want the option of detaining Americans without due process to remain open,” he said. “You can only oppose this legislation if you accept the idea that the federal government has the authority to do whatever it wants with absolutely no check on its actions – Constitution be damned. If you ask me, that’s a lot scarier than whatever terrorist threat they claim to be protecting me from.”
TAC executive Michael Boldin said he expects other states to soon follow the lead of Tennessee, Virginia and Washington.
“We have pretty strong indications that Rhode Island, Utah, Maine, New Jersey, Oklahoma and other states will be introducing similar legislation soon. This is just a start – and activists all over the country need to contact state legislators right now to voice their support.”
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Single State Defies NDAA Detainment Act
When Congress adopted and Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, alarms were raised over the possibility that it would allow the indefinite and rights-free detention of those who are called “belligerents,” even if they are American citizens.
While the argument over those provisions rages, one state lawmaker in Rhode Island has jumped into action to protect the danger he sees for residents of his state, proposing a resolution to exempt his constituents from sections of the federal law.
Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. today told WND he has drafted a resolution, which is being circulated among the lawmakers even now, to express opposition to the sections of the NDAA “that suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.”
“Sections 1021 and 1022 of the act, signed into law on New Years Eve of 2011, provide for the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military on American soil, without charge, and without right to legal counsel and right to trial,” he explained.
The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: “Taking America Back.” This package also includes the “Tea Party at Sea.”
“Given the fact that the constitutions of Rhode Island and that of the United States are replete with guarantees of individual liberties, right to habeas corpus, and right to freedom of speech, the offending sections of that law are repugnant to the sensibilities of anyone that has a basic understanding of the foundation of this country,” he said.
The opinions on the legislation signed by Obama vary. Commentator Chuck Baldwin, who himself has been the target of smears by the Department of Homeland Security-related apparatus, explained the law, “for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places U.S. citizens under military rule.”
He noted that Mike Adams at NaturalNews.com was horrified, writing, “One of the most extraordinary documents in human history – the Bill of Rights – has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the president’s signing of the National defense Authorization Act, a law that grants the U.S. military the ‘legal’ right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder.
This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused.
“When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that
in essence said, ‘I have the power to detain Americans … but I
won’t,” Baldwin wrote.
Baldwin was vilified by an anti-terror campaign in Missouri several years ago when authorities there described suspicious characters as those who might have supported Baldwin or other third-party candidates during a presidential election.
While the argument over those provisions rages, one state lawmaker in Rhode Island has jumped into action to protect the danger he sees for residents of his state, proposing a resolution to exempt his constituents from sections of the federal law.
Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. today told WND he has drafted a resolution, which is being circulated among the lawmakers even now, to express opposition to the sections of the NDAA “that suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.”
“Sections 1021 and 1022 of the act, signed into law on New Years Eve of 2011, provide for the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military on American soil, without charge, and without right to legal counsel and right to trial,” he explained.
The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: “Taking America Back.” This package also includes the “Tea Party at Sea.”
“Given the fact that the constitutions of Rhode Island and that of the United States are replete with guarantees of individual liberties, right to habeas corpus, and right to freedom of speech, the offending sections of that law are repugnant to the sensibilities of anyone that has a basic understanding of the foundation of this country,” he said.
The opinions on the legislation signed by Obama vary. Commentator Chuck Baldwin, who himself has been the target of smears by the Department of Homeland Security-related apparatus, explained the law, “for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places U.S. citizens under military rule.”
He noted that Mike Adams at NaturalNews.com was horrified, writing, “One of the most extraordinary documents in human history – the Bill of Rights – has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the president’s signing of the National defense Authorization Act, a law that grants the U.S. military the ‘legal’ right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder.
This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused.
“When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that
in essence said, ‘I have the power to detain Americans … but I
won’t,” Baldwin wrote.
Baldwin was vilified by an anti-terror campaign in Missouri several years ago when authorities there described suspicious characters as those who might have supported Baldwin or other third-party candidates during a presidential election.
Solar Energy Scandal
'The Department of Energy bragged about giving a $1.2 billion loan guarantee to SunPower, a politically connected solar energy company, to create “10-15 permanent jobs,” raising critical questions as to if California SunPower is the next Solyndra in the ongoing Crony-Gate scandal.
Unlike Solyndra, which went bankrupt after receiving the loan from the government leaving taxpayer on the hook, SunPower’s deal is more complicated. Many questions are being raised about how the company was able to obtain the loan and what they did after they got the money.'
NOTE: We've lived off grid since 1999 and would never again tie into the grid. However, small, individual systems are efficient, effective and offer freedom. These scams steal from all of us and are not clean, not green and not cheap.
Unlike Solyndra, which went bankrupt after receiving the loan from the government leaving taxpayer on the hook, SunPower’s deal is more complicated. Many questions are being raised about how the company was able to obtain the loan and what they did after they got the money.'
NOTE: We've lived off grid since 1999 and would never again tie into the grid. However, small, individual systems are efficient, effective and offer freedom. These scams steal from all of us and are not clean, not green and not cheap.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
California Has 1st Cannabis Expo
Despite the threat of a crackdown by federal authorities, California medical marijuana sellers have brazenly forged ahead with the first ever medical marijuana job fair.
Defying federal judges' calls for an outright ban, the West Coast Cannabis Expo, a gathering of medical marijuana growers and sellers went ahead with no sign of law enforcement officials.
At a time when many Americans are struggling to make ends meet in the face of job losses, medical marijuana is providing growing work opportunities.
Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges.
They also threatened to confiscate their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law.
But the cannabis crowd remains sceptical that the government will shut down one of the fastest-growing sectors of the California economy.
California's four U.S. attorneys sent letters on Wednesday and Thursday notifying at least 16 pot shops or their landlords that they are violating federal drug laws, even though medical marijuana is legal in California.
The letters stated that federal law 'takes precedence over state law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling and distributing marijuana'.
NOTE: Sad to see Ca's own State Attorneys are selling out to the Feds.
Defying federal judges' calls for an outright ban, the West Coast Cannabis Expo, a gathering of medical marijuana growers and sellers went ahead with no sign of law enforcement officials.
At a time when many Americans are struggling to make ends meet in the face of job losses, medical marijuana is providing growing work opportunities.
Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges.
They also threatened to confiscate their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law.
But the cannabis crowd remains sceptical that the government will shut down one of the fastest-growing sectors of the California economy.
California's four U.S. attorneys sent letters on Wednesday and Thursday notifying at least 16 pot shops or their landlords that they are violating federal drug laws, even though medical marijuana is legal in California.
The letters stated that federal law 'takes precedence over state law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling and distributing marijuana'.
NOTE: Sad to see Ca's own State Attorneys are selling out to the Feds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)