Montana NDAA Nullification Bill Passes House Committee, 20-0

Posted by

By a unanimous voice voice today, the Montana House Judiciary Committee voted to approved House Bill 522 (HB522) and move it to the full state house.

A modified version of the Liberty Preservation Act released by the Tenth Amendment Center, Montana joins a growing choir of states and localities who’ve decided that waiting for federal politicians to repeal their own power is something they’re not willing to risk.

The bill was sponsored by State Representative Nicholas Schwaderer who worked hard behind the scenes to get a bipartisan group of legislators to cosponsor – 18 republicans and 6 democrats.

After yesterday’s committee hearing on HB522, Montana Tenth Amendment Center coordinator Tim Ravndal expressed his belief that the bill would pass, and the fact that a wide coalition across the political aisle was in support:

“HB 522 FLEW through the House Judiciary Committee Hearing. I was asked at the conclusion of the hearing how it felt to be on the same side with ACLU. “Politics make strange bedfellows” We had no opposition to the bill, and only one question from the committee seeking clarification. This bill is on the freight train heading for the Governor!”

If signed into law, HB522 would make it illegal for Montana to participate in NDAA indefinite detention: “The state of Montana may not provide material support or participate with the implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the federal National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-81, within the boundaries of this state”

Noncompliance with federal law is 100% noncontroversial both legally and constitutionally. There’s absolutely ZERO serious thought that supports the idea that the federal government has the constitutional authority to require state agents to enforce federal laws. Even the Supreme Court has affirmed this more than once in recent history. Statements to the contrary are absurd.

Such noncompliance on a wide scale is very effective in rendering an unconstitutional federal act null, void or just unenforceable. Learn how this method plays out and works HERE.

ACTION STEPS for Montana….

 

Read Full Article Here

 

**********************************************************************************************************

 

rizona NDAA Nullification Bill Passes Committee, 6-2

Bookmark and Share

Posted by

By a vote of 6-2 the Arizona State House Judiciary Committee approved House Bill 2573 (HB2573), bringing it one step away from a full House vote.

A modified version of the Liberty Preservation Act released by the Tenth Amendment Center, Arizona joins a growing choir of states and localities who’ve decided that waiting for federal politicians to repeal their own power is something they’re not willing to risk.

Tenth Amendment Center member Bryan Berkland said as much in his public testimony in support of the bill:

“It would be nice if the federal government would check their own power, but that’s not happening.” Berkland began his testimony by pointing out the most important issue at hand, the federal government has no legitimate authority to indefinitely detain, that is, arrest without end and without access to courts or lawyers. He said, “When I read the Constitution, I don’t find any authorization for this.”

The bill was sponsored by State Representatives Carl Seel and Brenda Barton along with State Senator Judy Burgess. If signed into law, HB2573 would ban the state from providing “material support” or participating “in any way” with sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the sections which purport to authorize indefinite detention and are in effect today. (read more HERE and HERE).

At the beginning of testimony, the Committee chair noted that since so many people from the public were in attendance and had sign up to speak in favor of the bill – and no one has signed up to speak against it – they would allow a limited number of people to make the case. After Representative Seel and Berkland spoke, Mr Clark, a known local progressive activist, also urged the committee to vote in favor. In his testimony he spoke of something that’s happening across the country in opposition to indefinite detention – setting aside differences for common cause. “I stand strangely-enough with the republicans in support of this bill.”

Only one person spoke against the bill during the entire hearing – one of the two committee members who voted against it. (awaiting confirmation of the name of the member)

“A bill in contravention to the federal government is troubling to me. If someone is opposed to federal policy, the place to take it up is in the courts, not here in the state house.”

The problem with this statement is that the member is possibly not understanding the bill he just voted against. HB2573 doesn’t do anything to federal law. It says that the State of Arizona will not assist the federal government in carrying out their unconstitutional law. There’s absolutely ZERO serious thought that supports the idea that the federal government has the constitutional authority to require state agents to enforce federal laws. Even the Supreme Court has affirmed this more than once in recent history. Statements to the contrary are absurd.

Noncompliance with federal law – 100% noncontroversial both legally and constitutionally – is quite effective. Learn how this method plays out and works HERE.

Also, supporters of the bill might want to consider asking the representative if he would have been opposed to those states who passed laws in the 1850s in contravention to federal slave-catching laws, or if his rejection of such actions is simply limited to indefinite detention.

ACTION STEPS

 

Read Full Article Here

About these ads