The People v State & Federal authority, We filed last Thursday

[DNAprotection]

We filed this (please see below) on Thursday as a proposed ballot measure, the County now has 15 days to issue us back a title and summary before we can publish it and begin to gather signatures, and of which we only need 2115 valid.
If we get the required sigs, then we are on the ballot in November unless someone successfully files suit to keep it from appearing, in other words only a judge could keep it off the ballot if we fulfill the sig requirements.


The People of the County of Lake, in the State of California, do hereby decree:

'The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act of 2014'

An Ordinance to restore the natural Human Right to grow and use plants for the basic necessities of life.

Whereas in the State of California, the People of the County of Lake do hereby Find, Declare and Ordain as follows:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for people to reaffirm and reestablish the fundamental human rights with which they are naturally endowed, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's origins entitle them, and to recognize a decent respect for the opinions of humankind, requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to come forward toward the reestablishment of those rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all humans beings are created equal. That human beings are naturally endowed with certain rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to re-declare and reestablish the inherent human rights that would intrinsically correct such governmental negligence, and to reconstitute such in a form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Therefore, in accordance with the 9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America,
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.",
and also in accordance with the California State Constitution, Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 21.: ..."This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.",
and, also as consistent with County of Lake Ordinance No. 2267 in relation to private property rights, and,
whereas disregard and contempt for certain human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of humankind, and, whereas in a world which human beings endeavor to enjoy freedom of speech and belief, and where freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of peoples everywhere, be it here proclaimed that it has become necessary to reaffirm and specifically re-constitute the self evident inherent freedom to grow and use plants as described herein:

Section 1., Findings:

That human beings are naturally endowed with the fundamental self evident right to have and grow the natural plants of this earth, and the naturally occurring seeds thereof, to be used for their own needs as individuals in pursuit of life and in effort to live, and that such basic human rights have been recognized and acknowledged to exist, and that these rights are held in perpetuity outside of the constitutional responsibility of a government to protect an individual's right to engage in commerce.

Section 1.(a)

That all County of Lake residents residing within the unincorporated areas of the County who exercise the rights described in Section 1. of this Act at their residence within said area, and are compliant with Section 2.(a), and are gardening outside (outdoors) or in a greenhouse (and not withstanding any generally applicable urgency ordinance(s) specifically relating to water conservation), are, as accorded in the paragraphs above, necessarily exempt from any County permitting or other County ordinances that would limit an individual's home gardening efforts or abilities in conjunction with Section 1.

Section 1.(b)

That any law, to the extent that it would specifically deny or disparage the human rights as described in Section 1. of this Act is unconstitutional by both the Federal Constitutions 9th Amendment, and also by the State Constitutions Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 21, and by the fact that such self evident human rights are held in perpetuity by the People.

Section 2., Responsibilities:

Should neighbor complaints that are not related to Section 2.(a) herein, or that are not related to a specific medically verifiable toxic health risk to the public arise as an official complaint to the County as a result of an individual(s) exercising the rights as described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a), (and not withstanding any effected party choosing to seek remedy and or reparations by way of litigation through civil proceedings), all the effected parties shall be directed to mediation provided for by the County of Lake, and if resolution between the effected parties cannot be achieved in a reasonable effort to mediate (to be determined by the appointed mediator), the effected parties shall then continue mediation at their own expense (to be equally divided between the effected parties) until a resolution between the parties can be agreed upon, or until one of the effected parties withdraws from the mediation.

Section 2.(a)

All who exercise the rights described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a) of this Act, shall take reasonable care to prevent environmental destruction, and are responsible to mitigate any possible foreseen negative impacts on the natural environments, and all persons who neglect such practices shall be subject to the authority designated under Section 2.(b) herein, but such remedies are to be used to help individuals come into compliance with this section and not to unreasonably burden individuals who exercise the rights described in Section 1.

Section 2.(b)

The County of Lake Environmental Health Department shall administer over individual circumstances that may arise related to Section 2. and Section 2.(a) herein, but all such administrative authority and compliance inquiries shall be restricted to circumstances where a verifiable neighbor (or resident of the county) complaint in writing and signed by the complainant has been officially registered with the county.

Section 3., Special Circumstances:

Any law, to the extent that it would specifically deny or disparage the Human Rights as described in Section 1. of this Act, (and not withstanding an individual in violation of using illegal gardening chemicals, including but not limited to, certain pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers), is to be set aside unless it can be determined that the individual circumstance is occurring within the context of "commerce" related activities as defined herein, or if an individual's violation(s) of Section 2.(a) of this Act are to the extent of violating a criminal statute.

Section 3.(a)

This Act shall not apply in circumstances where (a) private rental or lease agreement(s) (contract) exist(s) pertaining to the occupancy and or use of any private land unless such is otherwise specifically enumerated within said agreement(s) (contract), or unless the agreement(s) (contract) does not specify any conditions or agreement pertaining to outside (or greenhouse) home gardening.

Section 4., Definitions:

(a) For the express purposes of this Act, the word "commerce" shall be taken to mean:
The buying and selling of goods or services in any form, and in direct reference to the exchange of United States currency (or other such legally recognized tender) for such goods or services.

(b) For the express purposes of this Act, the words phrased as "compliance inquiries" shall be taken to mean:
A written and delivered inquiry, and an in person inquiry as to responding to (a) specific complaint(s), and to which access to inspect private property shall only be in circumstances where the respondent has voluntarily agreed to and granted such access, or where on an individual basis, a court order has provided for such access.

(c) For the express purposes of Section 1. of this Act, the words phrased as "to be used for their own needs" shall be taken to mean:
For use as food, medicine, fiber, fuel, building materials, environmental damage mitigation or other environmental concerns, privacy, aesthetics or ambiance, spiritual/religious requirement, (or other) basic necessities of life.

(d) For the express purposes of Section 1. of this Act, the word "natural" and the words phrased as "naturally occurring" shall be taken to mean:
Plant species and varieties of such that have evolved in nature through the traditional pollination and cross pollination processes, be that by wind/weather, or animal (including human) assistance.

(e) For the express purposes of Section 1.(a) and Section 3.(a) of this Act, the word "greenhouse" shall be taken to mean:
Any structure where the sun's light can penetrate at least 80% of the roof (ceiling or top) surface and that is intended for and used for growing plants in.

Section 5., Severability:

If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. The People of the County of Lake hereby declare that we would have adopted this Act irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.

 

[DNAprotection]

Thought this was an interesting and relative bit I received via email the other day, as of yet though I haven't had time to research it:

"Community Rights educator Paul Cienfuegos explains how "We The People" are exercising the authority to govern ourselves and dismantle corporate rule. When small farmers in rural Pennsylvania wanted to say "no" to a corporate factory farm coming into their community, they learned they couldn't, because it would violate the corporation's "rights" and state pre-emption laws. So they did something technically illegal - their town passed an innovative ordinance banning corporate factory farming. It worked! The corporation left town. Pittsburgh upshifted the approach: Rather than define what we don't want, define what we DO want. Their "Right to Water" stopped natural gas fracking in the city. Ordinances like this have been passed in over 150 communities in 9 states."

 

[DNAprotection]

we are doing a radio show on this subject today (this morning) at 10am on kpfz 88.1 fm...
if anyone wishes to tune in, here is a live stream link:
Online Community Music - Live365 Internet Radio - KPFZ

 

[DNAprotection]

This is a movement to re-institute a government by and for the People...here in Lake County we are in with both feet, as represented by the proposed measure here in the op...

 

[KNB]

This is the most important piece of evidence for your cause:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngc0_mQ5tjE]Hemp For Victory (1942) U.S. Department of Agriculture - YouTube[/ame]

Show it to everyone who opposes this measure.

Also, "Cienfuegos" is a really cool last name.

 

[DNAprotection]

This is the most important piece of evidence for your cause:

Hemp For Victory (1942) U.S. Department of Agriculture - YouTube

Show it to everyone who opposes this measure.

Also, "Cienfuegos" is a really cool last name.

i hear ya KNB, its a perfect example of why we should have never allowed gov to cross the jurisdictional line of outlawing plants...look at all thats been lost just due to this one plant being outlawed...
if we would have seen this issue for what it really is from the beginning and simply maintained our natural human rights to grow and use plants etc (as described in the proposed measure above in op), none of this bs prohibition would have ever happened imo...
ps...just so you know that i know this vid, i was close friends with jack and helped him to get that video out to the public for many years...and i still do

 

[DNAprotection]

I see many here don't approve of much that the corpsgov involves itself with, yet I dont see much in the way of really trying to fix it?
We can let politicians make our lives equivalent to modern day slaves, or we can make our lives everything we want them to be if we are truly free...
There's simply no viable excuse for allowing the first scenario imo...

The ultimate authority rests with the people, and there's plain and simple language in the Declaration of Independence which describes exactly why government exists and how the ultimate authority always rests with the People...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"...

The State and Federal Constitution's also provide the language to assure that the People always have reach to declare certain rights that are help by the People:

9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America,

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.",

California State Constitution, Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 21.: ...
"This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people."


then at last the California Initiative process provides the appropriate avenue for remedy in declaring what such certain rights are.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

While I voted yes, I see this measure as nothing more than a "I hate Monsanto" and "Can I grow pot" law.

 

[editec]

While I voted yes, I see this measure as nothing more than a "I hate Monsanto" and "Can I grow pot" law.

Oh its far more than that.

In some cases now people aren't being allowed to plant vegetable gardens in their home plots.

Farmers are getting sued for the polluting of THEIR crops by MONSANTO's patented crops...as though it is their fault that the winds blow?

Mega-Corporate power is out of control.

We either solve this problem or we sow the seeds of a terrible retribution by the people sooner rather than later.

 

[DNAprotection]

While I voted yes, I see this measure as nothing more than a "I hate Monsanto" and "Can I grow pot" law.

I 'thanked' you for your sensible vote, but I must reiterate that this measure speaks to far more than that.
There are so many jurisdictional lines crossed when gov assumes the authority to outlaw plants by way of the 'commerce' excuse it should make your head spin around if you really thought about it imo...(1941 wickard v filburn)
The jurisdictional lines in question are fused to the same authority that allowed/gave reach to the courts finally providing for the patenting of 'original' genetic/dna sequencing in 1983...
What stops any currently unprotected by law naturally occurring variety of any plant from being a genetic threat to any coprs's intellectual property?
We would all naturally in effect hold 'patent rights' of all naturally occurring plants under the wing of human rights if a measure of this type was held as the national standard/human right etc and in imo patents would have never been allowed on dna sequencing if we had maintained these rights to begin with many moons ago...
Imo 'We the People' must reestablish our basic human rights that are held in perpetuity outside of the jurisdiction of commerce if we are to protect ourselves and our children from corporate rule as opposed to governance by the People, and this measure seeks to help get us there.
We tell our boys to go die for 'freedom', now it's high time we show them that we appreciate the sacrifice by restoring said 'freedom' as the People for the People...imo...

While I voted yes, I see this measure as nothing more than a "I hate Monsanto" and "Can I grow pot" law.

Oh its far more than that.

In some cases now people aren't being allowed to plant vegetable gardens in their home plots.

Farmers are getting sued for the polluting of THEIR crops by MONSANTO's patented crops...as though it is their fault that the winds blow?

Mega-Corporate power is out of control.

We either solve this problem or we sow the seeds of a terrible retribution by the people sooner rather than later.

"so shines a good deed in a weary world" ...thank you'

 

[Little-Acorn]

That's cute. Good luck with it.

I've said before that it would be supremely ironic if a bunch of pot heads and other druggies were to finally get the Courts to tell the Fed govt that they were violating the 10th amendment, and that they had to cease and desist in all programs that weren't specifically authorized to the Fed by the Constitution. I might even roll them a joint myself, and give it to them in celebration, if they could pull it off.

Be careful, though, citing one of the worst travesties ever to come out of the FDR administration: The idea that the govt or the courts had any duty to act to promote freedom from fear or want. This proclamation opened the door to the Big Govt that is sitting on you today. The govt's duty is only to ensure freedom from oppression.

"Fear" and "want" are simply ordinary parts of life, and cannot be eliminated any more than the necessity of breathing can be eliminated. Charging govt with such a task, simply gives them license to take everything you won and spend it on an impossible quest.

 

[DNAprotection]

That's cute. Good luck with it.

I've said before that it would be supremely ironic if a bunch of pot heads and other druggies were to finally get the Courts to tell the Fed govt that they were violating the 10th amendment, and that they had to cease and desist in all programs that weren't specifically authorized to the Fed by the Constitution. I might even roll them a joint myself, and give it to them in celebration, if they could pull it off.

Be careful, though, citing one of the worst travesties ever to come out of the FDR administration: The idea that the govt or the courts had any duty to act to promote freedom from fear or want. This proclamation opened the door to the Big Govt that is sitting on you today. The govt's duty is only to ensure freedom from oppression.

"Fear" and "want" are simply ordinary parts of life, and cannot be eliminated any more than the necessity of breathing can be eliminated. Charging govt with such a task, simply gives them license to take everything you won and spend it on an impossible quest.

I hear ya...and I can tell you I almost pulled those words out time and time again before leaving them in attempting to remain more true to the Declaration of Independence and of course in anticipation of litigation.
It seems to me though that the biggest shift in gov authority with respect to this area came in 1941 with the Wickard v Filburn ruling which effectively made everything everywhere commerce and thereby jurisdictional to regulate under the Commerce clause of the Constitution.
just my opinion though...

 

[PredFan]

Meh, I wasn't even thinking about pot when I read it. I'm thinking about excessive government regulation and abuse of power by the FDA and the EPA.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Meh, I wasn't even thinking about pot when I read it. I'm thinking about excessive government regulation and abuse of power by the FDA and the EPA.

That's what the pot heads intended. They've been trying to phrase cases this way for years now, heavy on the no-Federal-authority rhetoric (which is BTW correct), and very light on the its-none-of-anyones-business-if-we-want-to-get-high stuff.

That's why I consider it so ironic. The Fed does not, in fact, have any authority to regulate marijuana. Just as they have no authority to regulate wages, prices, workplace conditions, or any of a dozen other things where they've been intruding for decades. It would be great if the pot heads and other druggies could bring them to heel. I'll roll them a joint myself, if they can bring it off.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Meh, I wasn't even thinking about pot when I read it. I'm thinking about excessive government regulation and abuse of power by the FDA and the EPA.

That's what the pot heads intended. They've been trying to phrase cases this way for years now, heavy on the no-Federal-authority rhetoric (which is BTW correct), and very light on the its-none-of-anyones-business-if-we-want-to-get-high stuff.

That's why I consider it so ironic. The Fed does not, in fact, have any authority to regulate marijuana. Just as they have no authority to regulate wages, prices, workplace conditions, or any of a dozen other things where they've been intruding for decades. It would be great if the pot heads and other druggies could bring them to heel. I'll roll them a joint myself, if they can bring it off.

Your desires do not trump facts.

There needs a way to defeat big corporations, and the OP will not do it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

That's cute. Good luck with it.

I've said before that it would be supremely ironic if a bunch of pot heads and other druggies were to finally get the Courts to tell the Fed govt that they were violating the 10th amendment, and that they had to cease and desist in all programs that weren't specifically authorized to the Fed by the Constitution. I might even roll them a joint myself, and give it to them in celebration, if they could pull it off.

Be careful, though, citing one of the worst travesties ever to come out of the FDR administration: The idea that the govt or the courts had any duty to act to promote freedom from fear or want. This proclamation opened the door to the Big Govt that is sitting on you today. The govt's duty is only to ensure freedom from oppression.

"Fear" and "want" are simply ordinary parts of life, and cannot be eliminated any more than the necessity of breathing can be eliminated. Charging govt with such a task, simply gives them license to take everything you own and spend it on an impossible quest.

I hear ya...and I can tell you I almost pulled those words out time and time again before leaving them in attempting to remain more true to the Declaration of Independence and of course in anticipation of litigation.
It seems to me though that the biggest shift in gov authority with respect to this area came in 1941 with the Wickard v Filburn ruling which effectively made everything everywhere commerce and thereby jurisdictional to regulate under the Commerce clause of the Constitution.
just my opinion though...

IMHO it actually came a little earlier, with West Coast Hotel v. Parrish in 1937. It was a case about the constitutionality of a Minimum Wage law. Until that point, a 5-4 majority of Justices had been striking down govt initiatives right and left, on grounds that, no matter how much the country was suffering from the Great Depression, the govt still didn't have the authority to run the programs FDR kept trying to set up.

FDR made his "Court-packing" speech in early March, threatening to add six leftist justices to the Supreme Court. Ten days later, WCH was decided, and one conservative justice changed his vote. He announced that "liberty" included, not just the freedom from coercion by others, but also freedom from the ordinary problems in life (hunger, fear, etc.). Since government's job was to protect "liberty", this mean that now government had the authority to do whatever it needed, to protect people from these ordinary problems. And that included the authority to do nearly anything at all.

A series of similar cases followed, with the former 5-4 conservative majority now voting as a 4-5 minority, and the floodgates burst wide open. Government started expanding from that point, and had nearly doubled in size by the time Wickard was decided, and kept right on expanding. Wickard was one of the more obvious and silly cases that jumped on the bandwagon, but it wasn't the first. Wickard was actually backtracked a little in 1995 by US v. Lopez. The Justices literally laughed the government's lawyers out of the room when they tried to make an especially silly claim that guns near schools, would affect interstate commerce, and so came under that provision.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

We've been filing a very similar document at Suffolk COunty LEgislator, we go every 3 months and re-introduce it, and now we have an entire assembly of 300+ people who go and speak in its support:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ct-a-template-for-your-local-legislature.html

Title of Bill:
Federal and State Tyranny Prevention Act

Be It Enacted By The Suffolk County Legislature

Preamble:
Whereas that the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their federal government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

However, New York State has failed in her responsibility to shield and protect her citizens from the usurpations of the federal government, and has, itself, assumed powers that are prohibited to New York State through the New York State Constitution. Therefore the Suffolk County Legislature must erect a bulwark shielding her citizens against the tyranny of both the federal and state governments.

Section I:
a. In respect to the arbitrary and monstrous nature of the Patriot Act (and other similar laws), the United States is denied the ability to spy on any citizen of Suffolk County, unless they obtain a Warrant, supported by Oath or affirmation, particularly describing the things to be searched or seized. This Warrant must be presented to the Sheriff of Suffolk County, so that he or she has knowledge of the existence and nature of the Warrant, and may challenge the constitutional validity of the Warrant in the appropriate Suffolk County Court.

b. New York State is denied the ability to spy on any citizen of Suffolk County, unless they obtain a Warrant, supported by Oath or affirmation, particularly describing the things to be searched or seized. This Warrant must be presented to the Sheriff of Suffolk County, so that he or she has knowledge of the existence and nature of the Warrant, and may challenge the constitutional validity of the Warrant in the appropriate Suffolk County Court.

c. Any evidence obtained by the United States or New York State that circumvents the above processes, shall be inadmissible in court, and Suffolk County will shield its citizens from being arrested or detained or summoned before a state or federal tribunal, on evidence that is obtained contrary to this SECTION.

d. A federal or state Warrant that is challenged in a Suffolk County Court (by the sheriff) is rendered inoperative and is considered suspended, unless the appropriate Suffolk County Court approves the Warrant.

e. Local police and authorities reserve the right to exempt themselves from executing a federal or state search, regardless of the validity of the Warrant.

Section II:
a. In respect to the heinous implications of the National Defense Authorization Act (and other similar laws), the United States is denied the ability to kidnap any person within the boundaries of Suffolk County. The United States must obtain written permission from the Sheriff of Suffolk County before detaining or arresting an individual within Suffolk County, for any crime or violation of law thereof.

b. The failure of federal or state authorities to obtain written permission from the Sheriff of Suffolk County may be met with lethal force from either the local police or the person to be detained or arrested.

Section III:
a. Suffolk County recognizes the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as a legitimate article of the Constitution; however, the Constitution does not authorize the use of paper fiat currency, therefore Suffolk County will cease to enforce the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, unless the federal taxes are being collected in Lawful gold or silver Coin.

b. Suffolk County will also shield any of its inhabitants from detention or arrest or being forced to appear before a federal or state tribunal for failing to pay federal or state taxes in any Thing other than gold or silver Coin.

Section IV:
a. Suffolk County does not recognize that the United States is being Invaded, or is experiencing Rebellion; therefore in accordance to Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended for any person within the boundaries of Suffolk County.

Section V:
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United State shall be fully enforced as follows:

· No person within the boundaries of Suffolk County shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless of a presentment of a Grand Jury.
· No person shall be charged for the same crimes in either federal or state Courts, Suffolk County shall have sole jurisdiction over crimes that overlap with federal and state jurisdiction.
· No person may be compelled to testify against themselves, whether inside or outside of Court, for any reason.
· No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
· Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation in gold or silver Coin.
· The enumeration of certain Fifth Amendment rights and procedures in this SECTION shall not be construed to deny or disparage other Fifth Amendment rights retained by the people.

Section VI:
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution shall be fully enforced as follows:

· In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, and may therefore have cameras or any other external recording device present during their hearing or trial.
· The Jury shall be fully informed of their right to judge both the law and the facts.
· If the accused challenges the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court has the burden to prove its jurisdiction.
· The accused must be explicitly informed of the law of which they have violated, and how they have violated that particular law, before being asked to enter a plea.
· The accused has the right to confront all Witnesses against him or her.
· There must be at least one Witness, which may include the aggrieved person or party, in order for the court (federal, state or county) to have criminal jurisdiction.
· The accused may present any evidence on their behalf, and argue the constitutionality and fairness of the law itself.
· The enumeration of certain Sixth Amendment rights and procedures in this SECTION shall not be construed to deny or disparage other Sixth Amendment rights retained by the people.

Section VII:
The Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States shall be fully enforced as follows:

· The Twenty Dollar Clause shall be strictly applied, although adjusted for inflation at $268.
· The Jury shall be fully informed of their right to judge both the law and the facts.
· No fact determined by a Jury in Suits at common law shall be re-examined, regardless of subsequent and existing Case law which says otherwise, other than according to the rules of the common law.

Section VIII:
The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States shall be fully enforced as follows:

· Bail cannot exceed more than the average monthly income of the defendant.
· In cases where flight risk or public danger are a concern (preventive dentition), the accused shall be held by the local Suffolk County authorities, regardless of the jurisdiction of the crime.
· Any citizen, resident or other inhabitant of Suffolk County, who experiences cruel or unusual punishment from federal or state authorities, shall be immediately transferred to Suffolk County authorities to serve the rest of their sentence, if not acquitted during a local re-trial.
· Failure of the federal or state governments to transfer any tortured or severely mistreated prisoner will result in Suffolk County withholding federal taxes or state taxes.


Section IX:
Resolved, that the people of Suffolk County accept that each individual is endowed by the Creator with equal and unalienable rights, and that government is not God; therefore government does not create nor grant rights, but instead is solely designed to protect those rights.

The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States shall be fully enforced as follows:

· Any operation of law by the Federal or State government, that operates outside the boundaries of their enumerated powers, shall by null and void, absent of authority and force.
· The Necessary and Proper Clause is only to grant the General (Federal) Government subsidiary abilities in order to carry out their enumerated powers. For instance, if the Federal Government needs to build a Fort, it has the ability to purchase the required materials to build that fort.


Section X:
The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States shall be fully enforced as follows:

· All powers not delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution of the United States, nor to the government of New York State in the New York State Constitution, are reserved to Suffolk County, or to the town governments.
· Any attempt to enforce unconstitutional law shall be met with equal force.

Section XI:
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States shall be fully enforced as follows:

· Any law by Congress which imposes a religious ideology or prohibits the practice of a religion, or persecutes a certain religion, shall be null and void, absent of authority and force.
· All licenses and requirements to operate radio, television or any and all other forms of mass media communication, including any future attempt to license and control newspapers or other physically printed articles, shall be null and void, absent of authority and force.
· Any attempt to define seditious or libelous information, shall by null and void, absent of authority and force.
· Any attempt to arrest or detain or torture or otherwise harm an individual for speaking their mind and thoughts, shall be met with equal force by Suffolk County.
· Any attempt to sabotage, electronically alter (hack) or destroy information held by individuals or companies or corporations in Suffolk County, will result in Suffolk County withholding federal or state taxes.
· The right of people to peacefully assemble, at any public location, or private location (upon Consent of the Owner), shall not be abridged in any way, nor shall any permit or license be required. Any attempt to disrupt peaceful assembly may be met with lethal force by either individual citizens or local authorities.
· The right to petition the Federal and States Governments a redress of grievances, shall not be punishable by any means, and any punishment shall be met with either lethal force (if within Suffolk County) or will result in Suffolk County withholding federal or state taxes.
· Suffolk County has exclusive jurisdiction over all the definitions and prosecutions and punishments of internet crimes.

Section XII:

The Third Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was written to deter the establishment of a police state through the use of standing armies. Today, the federal government can impose a police state without the use of standing armies, the federal government need only to fly surveillance drones, armed or unarmed, over our skies.

We, the people of Suffolk County, recognize the quartering of drones over our skies, without our Consent, as a violation of the Third Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and shall not Consent to their presence hovering above households, threatening the security of our persons and homes, a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Third Amendment of the Constitution of the United States shall be fully enforced as follows:

· The United States is denied from flying drones over Suffolk County.
· Any drones flying over Suffolk County may be dismantled, disabled or destroyed by local authorities or regular citizens.
· Any attempt to fly manned aircraft over our skies shall result in the withholding of federal or state taxes.
· Any attempt to quarter Soldiers among the inhabitants of Suffolk County, shall be met with lethal force.
· Any attempt to station naval ships to blockade or otherwise obstruct our ports, shall result in immediate secession from the Union and New York State.

Section XIII:
There is only one logical interpretation of the Second Amendment, and that is that it shall not be infringed. Any other practice is a paradox, for it contradicts the very purpose of the Second Amendment in its entirety; it is the ultimate form of popular recourse against tyranny, and thus no potential tyrants may restrict it. The Second Amendment is the Supreme Sovereign; to surrender the Second Amendment, is to surrender the sovereignty of self-government, therefore:

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States shall be fully enforced as follows:

· Suffolk County recognizes that no criminal will abide any firearm regulation.
· All federal, state and local laws governing the possession and usage of any and all firearms, are hereby null and void, without authority or force.

Any attempt by the United States or the State of New York to impose tyrannical measures to control the supply, distribution, possession or usage of any and all firearms in Suffolk County, shall result in immediate secession from the Union and New York State.

Section XIV:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Resolved, that among these unalienable rights, is the right to contract, therefore no person shall be forced into contract with any other person or entity, therefore the Health Insurance Mandate, and all other similar mandates are null and void, without authority or force. Any attempt to enforce such laws repugnant to the natural rights of man shall result in immediate secession from the Union and New York State.

Section XV:
· This bill shall be enacted 91 days after its passage.

 

[DNAprotection]

Meh, I wasn't even thinking about pot when I read it. I'm thinking about excessive government regulation and abuse of power by the FDA and the EPA.

That's what the pot heads intended. They've been trying to phrase cases this way for years now, heavy on the no-Federal-authority rhetoric (which is BTW correct), and very light on the its-none-of-anyones-business-if-we-want-to-get-high stuff.

That's why I consider it so ironic. The Fed does not, in fact, have any authority to regulate marijuana. Just as they have no authority to regulate wages, prices, workplace conditions, or any of a dozen other things where they've been intruding for decades. It would be great if the pot heads and other druggies could bring them to heel. I'll roll them a joint myself, if they can bring it off.

Your desires do not trump facts.

There needs a way to defeat big corporations, and the OP will not do it.

The op is not claiming he can do such, but the op is claiming that The People collectively have that reach through the initiative process if measures are worded in such a way as to declare/restore etc fundamental self evident human rights just as the Dec of Ind expressly insists is govs intended function to protect, and then said doc provides language providing that the People may either 'alter' or 'abolish' any said gov that fails to meet the prime objective...The Constitution assures us all that our governing contract provides that the People hold certain rights, all we need do is agree on what those are and begin declaring, restoring and protecting such County by County and then State by State etc...
just my opinion (lol)...

ps...thanks for the great info below

That's cute. Good luck with it.

I've said before that it would be supremely ironic if a bunch of pot heads and other druggies were to finally get the Courts to tell the Fed govt that they were violating the 10th amendment, and that they had to cease and desist in all programs that weren't specifically authorized to the Fed by the Constitution. I might even roll them a joint myself, and give it to them in celebration, if they could pull it off.

Be careful, though, citing one of the worst travesties ever to come out of the FDR administration: The idea that the govt or the courts had any duty to act to promote freedom from fear or want. This proclamation opened the door to the Big Govt that is sitting on you today. The govt's duty is only to ensure freedom from oppression.

"Fear" and "want" are simply ordinary parts of life, and cannot be eliminated any more than the necessity of breathing can be eliminated. Charging govt with such a task, simply gives them license to take everything you own and spend it on an impossible quest.

I hear ya...and I can tell you I almost pulled those words out time and time again before leaving them in attempting to remain more true to the Declaration of Independence and of course in anticipation of litigation.
It seems to me though that the biggest shift in gov authority with respect to this area came in 1941 with the Wickard v Filburn ruling which effectively made everything everywhere commerce and thereby jurisdictional to regulate under the Commerce clause of the Constitution.
just my opinion though...

IMHO it actually came a little earlier, with West Coast Hotel v. Parrish in 1937. It was a case about the constitutionality of a Minimum Wage law. Until that point, a 5-4 majority of Justices had been striking down govt initiatives right and left, on grounds that, no matter how much the country was suffering from the Great Depression, the govt still didn't have the authority to run the programs FDR kept trying to set up.

FDR made his "Court-packing" speech in early March, threatening to add six leftist justices to the Supreme Court. Ten days later, WCH was decided, and one conservative justice changed his vote. He announced that "liberty" included, not just the freedom from coercion by others, but also freedom from the ordinary problems in life (hunger, fear, etc.). Since government's job was to protect "liberty", this mean that now government had the authority to do whatever it needed, to protect people from these ordinary problems. And that included the authority to do nearly anything at all.

A series of similar cases followed, with the former 5-4 conservative majority now voting as a 4-5 minority, and the floodgates burst wide open. Government started expanding from that point, and had nearly doubled in size by the time Wickard was decided, and kept right on expanding. Wickard was one of the more obvious and silly cases that jumped on the bandwagon, but it wasn't the first. Wickard was actually backtracked a little in 1995 by US v. Lopez. The Justices literally laughed the government's lawyers out of the room when they tried to make an especially silly claim that guns near schools, would affect interstate commerce, and so came under that provision.

 

[DNAprotection]

About a decade ago I filed suit against the Federal gov claiming protections under the 9th amen (also had other causes of action including a 1st amen argument) for the human right to grow any plant for our own uses outside of commerce, and of course I claimed that gov had no jurisdictional authority to outlaw any plant species etc..
In one of the first hearings the Judge tossed out the 9th amen argument, his reasoning was that an individual litigant cannot reach for the 9th amen whatsoever if attempting to claim a right 'held by the People' etc and that the 9th amen exists in court in the context of being simply a judges tool for interpreting the rest of the Constitution when adjudicating any particular case etc...
I've chewed on that judges words now for 10 years and I've come to the conclusion that he was correct.
Only the People can reach for the 9th amen to declare any certain right held by the People, and it is only after such, that a litigant can reach for said rights and the Constitutional protections afforded etc...
Makes perfect sense, if we the People don't declare the certain rights held by the People, then its not there for a judge(s) to confirm and its not a judge's place to make such a declaration on behalf of the People, so in the end it's nobody's fault but our's if we don't exercise the terms of our Constitutional contract...

 

[DNAprotection]

UPDATE:

We received the tittle and summary from the County (here below), it publishes on Wednesday (tomorrow), and then we can begin to gather signatures.
Because of the low 23% voter turn out in the last election for governor, our threshold number of signatures required to make it on the ballot is only 2,115 and we have 60 days to get them.


INITIATIVE MEASURE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS

The county council has prepared the following tittle and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:

AN INITIATIVE MEASURE TO RESTORE THE NATURAL HUMAN RIGHT TO GROW
AND USE PLANTS FOR THE BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE

This initiative measure asserts that human beings are naturally endowed with the fundamental self-evident right to have and grow the natural plants of this earth and the naturally occurring seeds thereof and that these rights are held in perpetuity outside of the constitutional responsibility of a government to protect an individual's right to engage in commerce. This measure seeks to exempt all Lake County residents within the unincorporated areas of the County from any County permitting or other County ordinances that would limit an individual's outside and/or greenhouse home gardening efforts or abilities as described in the initiative and would declare any law, to the extent it would specifically deny these human rights, to be unconstitutional under both the federal and state constitutions. This measure would require, in the event any neighbor complaints occur as a result of the right to have and grow the natural plants of this earth, which complaints are not related to a specific, medically- verifiable toxic health risk to the public, that the parties involved would be sent to mediation provided by the County of Lake. This initiative measure would require that all who exercise the rights described in the measure must take reasonable care to prevent environmental destruction and to mitigate foreseen negative impacts on the natural environments. The Lake County Environmental Health Department would be required by this measure to act as the administrative authority as to complaints by neighbors and foreseen negative environmental impacts should mitigation be neglected by an individual engaging in the gardening practices described in this measure, but that authority is restricted to circumstances where a verifiable neighbor or resident of the County signs a written complaint and officially registers it with the County. This initiative measure will require that any law, to the extent that it would specifically deny or disparage the human right to garden as described therein, (and not withstanding an individual in violation of using illegal garden chemicals), must be set aside unless it can be determined either that the individual circumstance is occurring within the context of commerce related activities as defined by this measure or if the individual's violation of the environmental obligations described in this measure rises to the violation of a criminal statute. This measure provides that it will not apply in circumstances where a private rental or lease agreement exists pertaining to the use or occupancy of private land unless it is otherwise specifically enumerated within such an agreement or unless the agreement does not specify any terms and conditions regarding outside or greenhouse gardening.
The initiative measure provides that if any provision of the ordinance or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

Dated: March 21, 2014 , ANITA L. GRANT, County Counsel, County of Lake