Saturday, June 1, 2013

California Moves a Step Closer to Nullifying Unconstitutional NDAA

image source
Activist Post

The National Defense Authorization Act strips the right of habeas corpus by applying broad detention power, using terms such as "associated forces" and "substantially supported," thus allowing the federal government to detain and even execute any person, including an American citizen, on U.S. soil without due process. Sections 1021 and 1022 are particularly onerous.

In response, dozens of states and local jurisdictions continue to move toward nullifying this unconstitutional threat against basic civil liberties and human rights.

California is among those who are making significant, bipartisan, nearly unanimous statements to rebuke federal overreach. As we reported earlier, the California Liberty Preservation Act passed through Committee by a unanimous vote 6-0. Now the People's Blog For The Constitution is reporting on another overwhelming victory.

Assembly Bill 351 was introduced February 13th, 2013 by Republican Assemblyman Tim Donnelly who was originally responsible for getting the issue into Committee. The Daily Caller noted at the time that even though the bill was introduced by a Republican, it received a unanimous vote across party lines.
The bill passed the Democrat-controlled committee 6-0 with the support of a wide-ranging coalition that included the American Civil Liberties Union, Tenth Amendment Center, San Francisco 99% Coalition, San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Libertarian Party of California. (Source)

The sentiment has now been thoroughly reinforced with the recent response to AB351 receiving a resounding vote of 71-1 to defeat the NDAA. And the language is strong and clear:
This bill would prohibit an agency in the State of California, a political subdivision of this state, an employee of an agency or a political subdivision of this state, as specified, or a member of the California National Guard, on official state duty, from knowingly aiding an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of a person within California pursuant to (1) Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), (2) the federal law known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, enacted in 2001, or (3) any other federal law, except as specified, 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. The bill would also prohibit local entities from knowingly using state funds and funds allocated by the state to those local entities on and after January 1, 2013, to engage in any activity that aids an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention of any person within California for purposes of implementing Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA or the federal law known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force , if that activity would violate the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, or any law of this state, as specified.
To see the specific redactions and additions, see the full bill text here.

It is important to note that this latest action is based on the dedicated work of large activist centers such as People Against the National Defense Authorization Act, the Tenth Amendment Center, and the People's Blog For the Constitution. And yet, as highlighted by PBFC, one California activist stands out, which shows that each of us must take responsibility for driving these important issues into focus.
Art Persyko, an activist with the San Francisco 99% Coalition who put in tireless work to support AB 351, stated: 
This is very exciting news for those of us in the SF 99% Coalition and our local allies who’ve been working to oppose the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA for the past year or so.  It’s great to see the California legislature stepping up and standing up for the civil liberties of everyone who lives in our state. With this vote for AB 351, and with our diverse statewide coalition of allies, I am now confident that we can get this bill through the Senate and onto the Governor’s desk for his signature. (Source)
Please lend your support by clicking the links above and donating if possible.

Is your community or state taking action? Please use the model legislation linked beneath the image below to help restore liberty to where you live.


Read other articles by Activist Post Here


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

I'm skeptical after seeing the results from proposition 37.

Rick said...

If California would refrain from stepping all over our constitutional right to bear arms, then we wouldn't need this bill. The people would just defend themselves and their neighbors. Just like lying. Once you start you have to always keep on lying taking even greater risks, till you finally can't keep them all strait with each other. Thank you California dysfunctional state government.


As a peaceful armchair activist, I won't feel comfortable until the NDAA, Patriot Act and other unconstitutional acts are in the dust bin and a constitutional government, as intoned by some of our good founders, is returned to the people.

Anonymous said...

'When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.' Thomas Jefferson

Anonymous said...

Proposition 37 was usless anyway !...
GMOs are in every processed "food" !
Take corn starch's 100% GMO .. gets better when you add water + mercury to it then you get "High Fructose Corn Surop" ....§8-')Delicious !

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't Federal Law take precedence over State Law? If this is actually successful I wonder how our State Law Enforcement agencies will respond when ordered to disperse a lawful assembly.

Anonymous said...

Federal Government is notorious for using opposite words for their titles. For example:

Natn'l defense Authorization Act is actually
Natn'l terrorism Authorization Act

Patriot Act is actually
Tyranny Act

Bank secrecy Act is actually
Bank account disclosure Act

Federal Reserve Bank is actually
Privately owned fiat money bank

and the list goes on....

Anonymous said...

Instead of passing laws to circumvent NDAA, why don't you publicize it? Most people have never heard of it. And then prosecute the federal government for violating the constitution. The people will support you once they understand what is going on.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that every single worthless scumbag in the CA legislature -- as well as the legislatures of every other state -- seems completely ignorant of the fact that federal "law" has ZERO jurisdiction inside of the 50 union states? Why is it that not one "governor" of any of these states has every single FBI and/or CIA agent within their borders seized and thrown into prison? The crap going on over medical marijuana, to take just one example, is worse than an outrage. The federal agents going after these dispensaries, and ruining peoples' lives, should all be suffering indefinite detention. Start giving these less-than-human thugs their own medicine. They are completely beneath contempt.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. It's only been there for 220 years.

And, by the way: @7:37, if federal law took precedence over state law, what in hell would be the point of having state legislatures in the first place? Additionally, the slimy criminals in CONgress have ZERO authority to overturn ANY law passed by any one of the 50 union states.

bob klinck said...

In a sane polity a local law affirming an instituted national constitution would be seen as redundant. If the United States does not as a whole recognize and respect its constitution, then it is finished as a nation.

Post a Comment