go to site creative writing worksheets for beginners http://v-nep.org/classroom/custom-paper/04/ abstract in research proposal follow url i need help writing a thesis statement go here http://bookclubofwashington.org/books/memoir-essay-example/14/ http://teacherswithoutborders.org/teach/professional-thesis-writersv/21/ population introduction essay http://www.conn29th.org/university/essay-writing-step-by-step.htm go to link pay to write top persuasive essay on pokemon go essay on community service what are the side effects of viagra depression thesis stephen crane the open boat essay xenical or orlistat http://utahlakecommission.org/thesis/need-help-writing-an-essay/76/ sample resume photography assistant https://thejeffreyfoundation.org/newsletter/thesis-statements-on-illegal-immigration/17/ how to find out my ipad imei buy viagra online with prescription viagra in hong kong see url preliminary thesis solving story problems with algebraВ cialis 5mg preise esl business plan editing service for college https://pacificainexile.org/students/india-or-west-which-is-the-land-of-opportunities-essay/10/ go to site go to link Report by Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center
Today, the California Public Safety Committee voted unanimously in favor of Assembly Bill 351 (SB351), 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.
The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorizes the United States federal government to exercise only those powers specifically delegated to it in the United States Constitution.
It then declares the indefinite detention powers under NDAA to be unconstitutional:
Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) codifies indefinite military detention without charge or trial of civilians captured far from any battlefield, violating the United States Constitution and corroding our nation’s commitment to the rule of law
Most importantly, the bill requires the entire state apparatus, including all local governments, to refuse to implement the federal act, or any other federal act (such as AUMF) that might be cited to give the same power to the federal government:
It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California.
This would make a HUGE dent in any effort to further restrict due process – and would be a big step forward for California. It would also create shockwaves around the rest of the country. As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). And in those limited situations where enforcement does occur, Rosa Parks has taught us all the power of “NO!” Passage of AB351 would mark the beginning of the end of NDAA indefinite detention in California.
According to committee chair Tom Ammiano, Donnelly spoke “eloquently” in favor of the bill. Donnelly not only reiterated that the Constitution delegates only limited powers to the federal government, but emphasized that violations of the constitution should be met with a firm NO from the state.
“AB351…says the federal government only has the powers enumerated in the Constitution…and does not have the authority here to detain people here without due process.”
“It is important that we in California say NO to human rights abuses that are endangered by the NDAA…instead of quietly complying with unjust and unconstitutional laws”
David Warren, Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety, was a witness in favor and reminded the committee of the indefinite detention of Japanese, Italians, Germans and other people during World War II, “The writ of habeas corpus is the most important right that a citizen has. Unfortunately our history is replete with abuses of that right going back to World War II.”
Art Persyko of the San Francisco 99% Coalition testified in favor as did Nancy Larned, a grassroots member of the Tenth Amendment Center.
“I’m here as a grandmother. I grew up with constitutional rights and due process – my children the same. My grandchildren, not so much. It’s just not right for one person or a small group to decide on those rights.”
Ammiano closed the discussion with kudos and support for the legislation, and the committee proceeded to vote unanimously in favor:
Mr Donnelly, you’ve been very eloquent in your presentation, and have found a zone that we’re all in. I compliment you for that. We got a lot of support for this bill, particularly from local people in my district (San Francisco).
The bill now moves forward to the full California Assembly for debate and vote.
The rest of the article can be read here .