10/1/13. New California Law Rejects NDAA Indefinite Detention. Tenthamendmentcenter.
“As reported by Nick Hankoff at the California Tenth Amendment Center today, AB351, the California Liberty Preservation Act has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown:
Assembly Bill 351, commonly called the California Liberty Preservation Act, has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown making it statewide policy to refuse compliance with federal attempts to enforce “indefinite detention” made famous by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). What began as a marginal issue with little legislative support has unified Californians of all persuasions and brought attention to the proper role the people and their states play in a constitutional republic.
AB351 now makes it state policy to reject “indefinite detention” powers from the federal government. It reads, in part:
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. [emphasis added]
This language of AB351 goes far beyond what has been considered in most other states, which focus solely on indefinite detention powers under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and nothing else. Donnelly’s legislation broadened the scope by recognizing that indefinite detention should not be complied with no matter what federal law is used to justify it. Donnelly confirmed this broad scope, “AB351 will prevent California from implementing indefinite detention for any reason.”
This can make a HUGE dent in any federal effort to detain without due process in California. As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). Quite simply, the federal government is going to have an extremely difficult time – at best – carrying out indefinite detention in California without the assistance of California.
Hankoff noted the broad coalition which brought the bill from zero support to law in California:
Assemblyman Tim Donnelly first introduced AB-351 in February after various grassroots coalitions won their efforts to condemn “indefinite detention” (government kidnapping) in the form of resolutions in San Francisco, Berkeley, Fairfax, and Santa Cruz, while still more organized in Los Angeles and elsewhere. These coalitions included 99%ers, the CA Libertarian Party, Bill of Rights Defense Committee, CA Republican Liberty Caucus, ACLU, Oath Keepers, and more. Despite this organic, spontaneous cooperation Donnelly couldn’t find a single ally in the California legislature for the bill. That was, until members of the mentioned organizations showed up to testify at AB-351′s first committee hearing.
At the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Chairman Tom Ammiano, widely considered the most progressive Democratic CA Assemblyman told Donnelly, the most conservative Republican that “you have found a zone we are all in.” AB-351 passed out of committee unanimously.
Acting as floor manager for the bill in the Senate, San Francisco liberal Democrat Mark Leno, and his colleagues had a brief laugh he was the one presenting a bill introduced by ultra-conservative Assemblymember Tim Donnelly. Leno noted that this was the result of the serious nature of the matter at hand. He said, “It doesn’t matter where one finds oneself on the political spectrum, these two sections of this national defense act are wrong, unconstitutional and never should have been included.”
Some opponents of the legislation claimed that the US Constitution’s “supremacy clause” prevents the state from taking this action. But this is a complete misunderstanding, not only of the supremacy clause, but of AB351 as well. There is absolutely ZERO serious dispute about the fact that the federal government cannot “commandeer” the states to carry out its laws. None. Even the Supreme Court has affirmed this multiple times.
In the 1992 case, New York v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
In the 1997 case, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.
In the 2012 case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that a significant expansion of Medicaid was not a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding.
In each of these cases, the Supreme Court made is quite clear that their opinion is that the federal government cannot require the states to act, or even coerce them to act through a threat to lose funding. Their opinion is correct. If the feds pass a law, they can sure try to enforce it if they want. But the states absolutely do not have to help them in any way.
A BIG STEP FORWARD
The new law stops short of an express prohibition on all government agencies and employees within the state, but creates a powerful climate for follow up activity and legislation on a local level to give AB351 the legal force it needs to have a practical impact moving forward. The prohibitory language of the bill reads:
no agency of the State of California, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency, or a political subdivision, of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the California National Guard on official state duty shall knowingly aid an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of a person within California pursuant to (A) Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), (B) the federal law known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), enacted in 2001, or (C) any other federal law, if the state agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the California National Guard would violate the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any law of this state by providing that aid.
By including a caveat at the end of this section - if the state agency, political subdivision, employee… - the bill is not an express prohibition on all agencies, political subdivisions, and employees, including the California National Guard. Rather, since no official determination has been made on such constitutionality as of yet, it leaves Constitutionality to discretion. But, the new law does create a legal backing to those sheriffs, law enforcement officers, and other agencies and employees, to refuse to assist the federal government in such activities based on their own constitutional determination. As Sheriff Richard Mack has been teaching around the country for years now, this is what should be done all the time already. (visit the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association for more information)
Now that the bill is law in California, AB351 creates a climate for each local community in the state – counties, cities, towns, etc – to step up and get involved. To give the bill teeth activists are strongly encouraged to take action at a local level – to press their local governments to pass legally-binding ordinances to give the new state law additional force. The local legislation would do the following:
a) Express full support for the new state policy 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.”
b) Create an express prohibition on the use of any local government assets – funds, employees, and the like – to provide material support for or participate in any way with federal indefinite detention.
Once the state is blanketed with localities which have passed such measures, the practical effect would be even stronger than if AB351 had ordered them to do the same. Reaching this point would mean that support for the effort would be well into the mainstream around the state, and that resolve to ensure the resistance continues to victory is likely much stronger.
A number of local communities around the state, including Fairfax, San Francisco and Berkeley, have already moved in this direction by passing resolutions in opposition to NDAA indefinite detention. While activists would still be encouraged to take this path if AB351 fails, passage of the bill with its very specific policy intent will make accomplishing these local goals much less difficult.”
10/1/13. Illinois Governor Signs Bill Limiting Drone Use Into Law. Tenthamendmentcenter.com
“Law enforcement in Illinois will now have to work under strict regulations when it comes to drones.
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed a bill restricting drone spying to the point of near extinction into law late last month.
SB1587 prohibits law enforcement agencies from using unmanned drones to gather evidence or other information without a warrant in most cases.
The House overwhelmingly passed the Freedom from Drone Surveillance Act 105-12 on May 30. The Senate gave its approval 52-1 in April and quickly concurred with two House Amendments the day after House passage. Gov. Quinn inked his name on the legislation on Aug. 27.
The act does leave the door open for some drone use. The prime exception allows for the use of drones “to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the United States Secretary of Homeland Security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is such a risk.” In addition, the bill would permit law enforcement agencies to use drones when attempting to locate a missing person, as long as that flight was “not also undertaking a criminal investigation.” It would also allow for review of a crime scene and traffic crash scene photography. Any information gathered by a drone would have to be destroyed within 30 days, unless the information proved to contain evidence of criminal activity, or was relevant to a trial or investigation.
While the exceptions raise legitimate concerns, as things existed prior to the law, Illinois had no protections against drones.
1. The DHS could call on Illinois to use drones for any “non-emergency” situation it wanted.
2. The DHS could call on Illinois to use drones for any emergency situation it wanted
3. Law enforcement in Illinois could use drones in any situation they wanted.
The new law eliminates number one and most of number three, so this bill ushers in a MASSIVE improvement over the status quo.
While the legislation only limits drone use by state and local government, it will seriously impact federal plans. At this stage in the ‘drone game,’ the feds are working hard behind the scenes to get states to operate the drones for them.
In fact, the federal government serves as the primary engine behind the expansion of drone surveillance carried out by states and local communities. The Department of Homeland Security issues large grants to local governments so they can purchase drones. Those grants, in and of themselves, represent an unconstitutional expansion of power.
The goal? Fund a network of drones around the country and put the operational burden on the states. Once they create a web over the whole country, DHS steps in with requests for ‘information sharing.’ Bills like these put a dent in this kind of long-term strategy. Without the states and local communities operating the drones today, it’s going to be nearly impossible for DHS plans to – take off.
With governors in Illinois and Oregon signing bills into law, eight states now have limits on drone use in their airspace.”