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

[Sallow]

You folks are seriously hilarious.

 

[editec]

The STATES have the constitutional right to put down this government.

They can always call for a new constitutional convention and rewrite our constitution to better suit their needs.

I do not ever expect this to happen, but I offer this as an alternate solution to the revolution that I suspect some of you think is the ONLY solution to our woes.

 

[Polk]

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.

It's not "clearly in conflict" with that decision. You'll notice that decision is discussing courts. Congress is not a court. It's the legislature. And the federal government does not have the power to force state officials to enforce federal laws (see Printz v. United States).

 

[Wry Catcher]

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."

Montana, and other so inclined stats, should put their efforts into legal challenges and put aside the political theater. Section 1021 may in fact violate the Constitution if the quoted part is accurate, and if and when the President uses this power against an American Citizen the individual will likely be represented by the ACLU or other council, and each AG in each state who opposes the law may then file an amicus curiae.

Passing such bills in State Legislatures is political theater in the extreme and is symbolic only; carries no force of law.

 

[Borillar]

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.

A couple points for your consideration:

Opposition to NDAA and the Patriot Act does not necessarily equate to being a "Paulite loon". I stand in opposition and I am a liberal. I have pointed out the Republican hypocrisy in starting this whole thing and now voicing opposition once the other party is in power.

Montana is a major agricultural state. I doubt you would starve them even if you could fence them off. As a native Montanan, I find the notion offensive even though I realize you were being facetious.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

It's interesting to watch the "Hugos" in this forum hide behind the U.S. Constitution when it's convenient for them, while at the same time bashing the U.S. Constitution when it does not fit their newest political agenda.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

Yes, it's always sad to see people flip on big positions like being against stimulus, the patriot act, the war on terror, Guantanamo bay, bailing out the rich and so on, only to see them support all of it under a different President just because they switch to a Democrat.

So yes, I know what you mean very much so.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's interesting to watch the "Hugos" in this forum hide behind the U.S. Constitution when it's convenient for them, while at the same time bashing the U.S. Constitution when it does not fit their newest political agenda.

I must have missed all that bashing of the U.S. Constitution by "Hugos". Please post several so I can understand the point you suffer to make.

 

[tjvh]

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?

How's Obama repeal of that Act working out for you?

 

[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?

How's Obama repeal of that Act working out for you?

There is no repeal, and the fact there is none pisses me off.

 

[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.

A couple points for your consideration:

Opposition to NDAA and the Patriot Act does not necessarily equate to being a "Paulite loon". I stand in opposition and I am a liberal. I have pointed out the Republican hypocrisy in starting this whole thing and now voicing opposition once the other party is in power.

Montana is a major agricultural state. I doubt you would starve them even if you could fence them off. As a native Montanan, I find the notion offensive even though I realize you were being facetious.

Well, the Unabomber, the Freemen, various militia groups.. It seems like your ex-state attracts a lot of nutbags. I thought the Paulites would fit right in.

I guess I don't worry about the NDAA. Frankly, we don't hold presidents accountable when they openly break the law.

The Damage the Paulites are doing to the GOP Brand name, however, is a lot more serious. While I may never vote Republican again, the way they are going, I do want a Republican Party that is a viable alternative. Frankly, if it's dominated by libertarian loons and religous loons, that's not a credible brand name.

 

[Borillar]

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.

A couple points for your consideration:

Opposition to NDAA and the Patriot Act does not necessarily equate to being a "Paulite loon". I stand in opposition and I am a liberal. I have pointed out the Republican hypocrisy in starting this whole thing and now voicing opposition once the other party is in power.

Montana is a major agricultural state. I doubt you would starve them even if you could fence them off. As a native Montanan, I find the notion offensive even though I realize you were being facetious.

Well, the Unabomber, the Freemen, various militia groups.. It seems like your ex-state attracts a lot of nutbags. I thought the Paulites would fit right in.

I guess I don't worry about the NDAA. Frankly, we don't hold presidents accountable when they openly break the law.

The Damage the Paulites are doing to the GOP Brand name, however, is a lot more serious. While I may never vote Republican again, the way they are going, I do want a Republican Party that is a viable alternative. Frankly, if it's dominated by libertarian loons and religous loons, that's not a credible brand name.

Believe me, every state has its nutjobs. It isn't endemic to Montana.

I was extremely worried about the Patriot Act. I saw it as a huge power grab giving the President near imperial powers. No government official should have that kind of power. Not Bush, not Obama, nor anyone else.

I think the Religious right has done more harm to the Republican brand than the libertarians, but I suppose that it is just my own opinion.

 

[paulitician]

Some real good is coming out of this current Dictatorship. States are now waking up. Time to fight back. It's great to see.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

paulitician, why do you hate America?

 

[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

paulitician, why do you hate America?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

paulitician, why do you hate America?

I see you can't dispute the charge that you hate America.

 

[paulitician]

paulitician, why do you hate America?

I see you can't dispute the charge that you hate America.

 

[Jarlaxle]

paulitician, why do you hate America?

I see you can't dispute the charge that you hate America.

Why would he? From you, it's on the same level as accusing him of being an alien duplicate disguised by a hologram and a mind-control ray and reporting to Cthulu.

 

[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.

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.

You mean was re enabled. The Patriot Act was origionally passed under total republican control.

 

[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.

You mean was re enabled. The Patriot Act was origionally passed under total republican control.

The Patriot Act and NDAA are well-supported by most Republicans and Democrats. Very few in either Party have stood up against them. That is very sad, but it's the current state of things in America.