Montana House Votes 98-0 To Approve Anti-NDAA Bill...

[paulitician]

Wow, great to see States getting back in the game.


Montana House Votes 98-0 To Approve Anti-NDAA Bill
By Nick Sibilla - March 1, 2013

UPDATE: Since this piece was published, the Montana legislature has updated the official vote count as 98-0

In a huge win for the Bill of Rights, the Montana House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill to ban indefinite detention in Montana by a vote of 97 to 1. Introduced by state Rep. Nicholas Schwaderer, HB 522 would also “prohibit state cooperation with federal officials” who try to enforce the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The lone no vote was cast by Democrat Bob Mehlhoff. HB 522 previously passed the House Judiciary Committee unanimously. The bill now heads to the state senate for approval.

During the second reading of the bill on Tuesday, Schwaderer noted that his bill would have a real effect on defending the right to due process in Big Sky Country. This is “not a letter to Santa Claus,” he quipped. The freshman representative also cited Printz v. U.S., a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that state officials could not be commandeered by the federal government...

More:
People's Blog for the Constitution » Montana House Votes 97-1 to approve anti-NDAA bill

 

[gallantwarrior]

It would appear increasing numbers of States are passing legislation that at the very least, should send a clear message to the feds. In AK, we passed House Bill 69. There are currently other similar bills being considered.

House Bill 69 has three parts:

* The first part (sections 2, 3, and 4) would prohibit the federal government from regulating firearms made and possessed wholly within the state of Alaska. In addition, the state attorney general would be authorized to defend Alaskans prosecuted by the federal government in violation of this provision.

* The second part (section 5(f)) would prohibit Alaska’s state and local officials from enforcing unconstitutional gun bans and registration systems.

* The third part (section 5(g)) would make it a felony for a federal official to try to enforce an unconstitutional gun ban or system of registration in the state of Alaska.

Anchorage Daily News : Alaska House passes bill challenging future federal gun restrictions

 

[Borillar]

Wow, great to see States getting back in the game.


Montana House Votes 98-0 To Approve Anti-NDAA Bill
By Nick Sibilla - March 1, 2013

UPDATE: Since this piece was published, the Montana legislature has updated the official vote count as 98-0

In a huge win for the Bill of Rights, the Montana House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill to ban indefinite detention in Montana by a vote of 97 to 1. Introduced by state Rep. Nicholas Schwaderer, HB 522 would also “prohibit state cooperation with federal officials” who try to enforce the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The lone no vote was cast by Democrat Bob Mehlhoff. HB 522 previously passed the House Judiciary Committee unanimously. The bill now heads to the state senate for approval.

During the second reading of the bill on Tuesday, Schwaderer noted that his bill would have a real effect on defending the right to due process in Big Sky Country. This is “not a letter to Santa Claus,” he quipped. The freshman representative also cited Printz v. U.S., a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that state officials could not be commandeered by the federal government...

More:
People's Blog for the Constitution » Montana House Votes 97-1 to approve anti-NDAA bill

Good for them. I wonder how they felt about the original Patriot Act?

 

[uscitizen]

Wow, great to see States getting back in the game.


Montana House Votes 98-0 To Approve Anti-NDAA Bill
By Nick Sibilla - March 1, 2013

UPDATE: Since this piece was published, the Montana legislature has updated the official vote count as 98-0

In a huge win for the Bill of Rights, the Montana House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill to ban indefinite detention in Montana by a vote of 97 to 1. Introduced by state Rep. Nicholas Schwaderer, HB 522 would also “prohibit state cooperation with federal officials” who try to enforce the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The lone no vote was cast by Democrat Bob Mehlhoff. HB 522 previously passed the House Judiciary Committee unanimously. The bill now heads to the state senate for approval.

During the second reading of the bill on Tuesday, Schwaderer noted that his bill would have a real effect on defending the right to due process in Big Sky Country. This is “not a letter to Santa Claus,” he quipped. The freshman representative also cited Printz v. U.S., a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that state officials could not be commandeered by the federal government...

More:
People's Blog for the Constitution » Montana House Votes 97-1 to approve anti-NDAA bill

Good for them. I wonder how they felt about the original Patriot Act?

I believe they supported it.
But a Republican was president then.

 

[uscitizen]

It would appear that right wing states are not very patriotic.

 

[Polk]

It would appear increasing numbers of States are passing legislation that at the very least, should send a clear message to the feds. In AK, we passed House Bill 69. There are currently other similar bills being considered.

House Bill 69 has three parts:

* The first part (sections 2, 3, and 4) would prohibit the federal government from regulating firearms made and possessed wholly within the state of Alaska. In addition, the state attorney general would be authorized to defend Alaskans prosecuted by the federal government in violation of this provision.

* The second part (section 5(f)) would prohibit Alaska’s state and local officials from enforcing unconstitutional gun bans and registration systems.

* The third part (section 5(g)) would make it a felony for a federal official to try to enforce an unconstitutional gun ban or system of registration in the state of Alaska.

Anchorage Daily News : Alaska House passes bill challenging future federal gun restrictions

That's a cute law, with first part being nonsensical, the second part being fine legally speaking, and the third being unconstitutional.

 

[Mr. H.]

It would appear increasing numbers of States are passing legislation that at the very least, should send a clear message to the feds. In AK, we passed House Bill 69. There are currently other similar bills being considered.

House Bill 69 has three parts:

* The first part (sections 2, 3, and 4) would prohibit the federal government from regulating firearms made and possessed wholly within the state of Alaska. In addition, the state attorney general would be authorized to defend Alaskans prosecuted by the federal government in violation of this provision.

* The second part (section 5(f)) would prohibit Alaska’s state and local officials from enforcing unconstitutional gun bans and registration systems.

* The third part (section 5(g)) would make it a felony for a federal official to try to enforce an unconstitutional gun ban or system of registration in the state of Alaska.

Anchorage Daily News : Alaska House passes bill challenging future federal gun restrictions

That's a cute law, with first part being nonsensical, the second part being fine legally speaking, and the third being unconstitutional.

Speaking of the Constitution...

Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the "indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President."

 

[Borillar]

It would appear increasing numbers of States are passing legislation that at the very least, should send a clear message to the feds. In AK, we passed House Bill 69. There are currently other similar bills being considered.



Anchorage Daily News : Alaska House passes bill challenging future federal gun restrictions

That's a cute law, with first part being nonsensical, the second part being fine legally speaking, and the third being unconstitutional.

Speaking of the Constitution...

Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the "indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President."

It's frightening how such a thing could become law in this country.

 

[uscitizen]

What is not at all suprising is most of those complaining about the no due process for detainees since 2008 are republicans, who supported it before 2008.

Unlike the right wingers I did not support it then and I do not support it now.
I am not a political puppet.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It would appear increasing numbers of States are passing legislation that at the very least, should send a clear message to the feds. In AK, we passed House Bill 69. There are currently other similar bills being considered.



Anchorage Daily News : Alaska House passes bill challenging future federal gun restrictions

That's a cute law, with first part being nonsensical, the second part being fine legally speaking, and the third being unconstitutional.

Speaking of the Constitution...

Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the "indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President."

When a law is clearly unconstitutional, as this clause is (read: 5th Amendment, US Constitution), what obligation have citizens to obey such a "law"?

 

[Borillar]

What is not at all suprising is most of those complaining about the no due process for detainees since 2008 are republicans, who supported it before 2008.

Unlike the right wingers I did not support it then and I do not support it now.
I am not a political puppet.

For all the lip service Republicans are giving this no due process, it would never have become law without significant Republican support and and the passage of the original Patriot Act. I am very troubled that NDAA has any Democratic support and that a Democratic President signed it into law. It is clearly unconstitutional and has opened a Pandora's box WRT presidential powers. Well, actually the Patriot act opened the Pandora's box. This simply continues what should never have been allowed in the first place.

 

[Misty]

What is not at all suprising is most of those complaining about the no due process for detainees since 2008 are republicans, who supported it before 2008.

Unlike the right wingers I did not support it then and I do not support it now.
I am not a political puppet.

When bush signed it I didn't like it either but Obama promised to veto it and once again lied.

Oh and btw the bill passed overwhelmingly in 2008 by a democrat controlled house and senate.

 

[paulitician]

What is not at all suprising is most of those complaining about the no due process for detainees since 2008 are republicans, who supported it before 2008.

Unlike the right wingers I did not support it then and I do not support it now.
I am not a political puppet.

When bush signed it I didn't like it either but Obama promised to veto it and once again lied.

Oh and btw the bill passed overwhelmingly in 2008 by a democrat controlled house and senate.

The States are now getting back in the game. It's great to see. It took a Dictatorship to wake em up, but it's better late than never i guess.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I see Drone Strikes in Montana's future!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It would appear increasing numbers of States are passing legislation that at the very least, should send a clear message to the feds. In AK, we passed House Bill 69. There are currently other similar bills being considered.

House Bill 69 has three parts:

* The first part (sections 2, 3, and 4) would prohibit the federal government from regulating firearms made and possessed wholly within the state of Alaska. In addition, the state attorney general would be authorized to defend Alaskans prosecuted by the federal government in violation of this provision.

* The second part (section 5(f)) would prohibit Alaska’s state and local officials from enforcing unconstitutional gun bans and registration systems.

* The third part (section 5(g)) would make it a felony for a federal official to try to enforce an unconstitutional gun ban or system of registration in the state of Alaska.

Anchorage Daily News : Alaska House passes bill challenging future federal gun restrictions

That's a cute law, with first part being nonsensical, the second part being fine legally speaking, and the third being unconstitutional.

Actually the whole thing is nonsensical and un-Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's a cute law, with first part being nonsensical, the second part being fine legally speaking, and the third being unconstitutional.

Speaking of the Constitution...

Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the "indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President."

When a law is clearly unconstitutional, as this clause is (read: 5th Amendment, US Constitution), what obligation have citizens to obey such a "law"?

All acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until a court rules otherwise. See: Ogden v. Saunders (1827), US v. Lopez (1995).

The NDAA is a non-law, it doesn’t do or authorize anything, particularly military detentions and detentions absent habeas. It’s only been challenged on First Amendment grounds and can’t be challenged on 5th Amendment grounds.

Consequently there’s nothing for citizens to obey or not obey.

 

[Polk]

It would appear increasing numbers of States are passing legislation that at the very least, should send a clear message to the feds. In AK, we passed House Bill 69. There are currently other similar bills being considered.



Anchorage Daily News : Alaska House passes bill challenging future federal gun restrictions

That's a cute law, with first part being nonsensical, the second part being fine legally speaking, and the third being unconstitutional.

Actually the whole thing is nonsensical and un-Constitutional.

The second part is constitutional. Good policy? That's a different question.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's a cute law, with first part being nonsensical, the second part being fine legally speaking, and the third being unconstitutional.

Actually the whole thing is nonsensical and un-Constitutional.

The second part is constitutional. Good policy? That's a different question.

Assuming this is the ‘second part' you’re referring to:

“The second part (section 5(f)) would prohibit Alaska’s state and local officials from enforcing unconstitutional gun bans and registration systems.”

That’s clearly in conflict with Cooper v. Aaron (1958), and thus un-Constitutional:

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a [358 U.S. 1, 19] power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398.

 

[JoeB131]

Maybe we can fence off Montana and make it the home for all the Paulite loons.

Without the rest of us to feed them, they might even die off.

 

[Sallow]

What is not at all suprising is most of those complaining about the no due process for detainees since 2008 are republicans, who supported it before 2008.

Unlike the right wingers I did not support it then and I do not support it now.
I am not a political puppet.

When bush signed it I didn't like it either but Obama promised to veto it and once again lied.

Oh and btw the bill passed overwhelmingly in 2008 by a democrat controlled house and senate.

Kind of tears down the Conservative argument that Democrats were obstructionists to Bush.

In terms of policy and legislation, Bush was one of the most successful Presidents in American history.