BREAKING: Tennessee files historic legislation; Takes aim at state’s NSA facility

reply to post by freakjive


I remember a story a little while back about google using a barge out in a bay area that no one had any idea what it was for...........What if.



What if the PTB figured this was going to happen and needed a back up plan that was not on land that could avoid state law.

MessageforAll
To my American friends, it wasn't a personal attack, it was a sincere question; I assumed that would be considered illegal because its not in the best interest of the country ( following MSM BS afc )

LOL, you riled up the Muricans.

But they are right. Our "nation" is a cobbled together union of states (and Texas, a republic annexed by treaty). The states have rights. The Fed was intended to be a bare bones organization that represented the combined wills of the states on the national scene. It has become a bloated parasite.

Inside my heart of hearts, I know anarchism wouldn't work. But my government has so exhausted me in mundane mendacity that I bristle at the notion of any laws that restrain me from acting with good judgement.

Destinyone
Tell me how it's illegal for a State to attempt to over ride a bill, and components of a bill, signed into law by a President running an end round, around our Constitution.

Article Six of the United States Constitution, Clause 2 - Supremacy clause.

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six of the United States Constitution, Clause 2, that establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.

Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.[1]

This goes back to one of my earlier posts, noting the number of states that are taking actions / legislating against the Federal Government. When states ignore SCOTUS rulings / Federal Law you know there is a level of anger. With that said the supremacy clause, in addition to the elastic (commerce clause, Elastic clause and necessary and proper clause) have been abused by the Federal government. They were never intended to be used in the manner they are (usurping state sovereignty).

They also ignore that clause that states anything not granted to the Federal government is reserved for the states.

reply to post by Xcathdra


EXACTLY! Any "victory" some state has over federal law has it because the federal government did not or does not consider it to be of any real consequence to them.Fedgov will placate the states but will not change based on the actions or opinions of any state.To change fedgov,most states would have to be totally commited to a course of action that would lead to bloodshed or worse.Fedgov will not give up its power or authority to a lesser body.That lesser body being US.

bigfatfurrytexan

MessageforAll
To my American friends, it wasn't a personal attack, it was a sincere question; I assumed that would be considered illegal because its not in the best interest of the country ( following MSM BS afc )

LOL, you riled up the Muricans.

But they are right. Our "nation" is a cobbled together union of states (and Texas, a republic annexed by treaty). The states have rights. The Fed was intended to be a bare bones organization that represented the combined wills of the states on the national scene. It has become a bloated parasite.

Inside my heart of hearts, I know anarchism wouldn't work. But my government has so exhausted me in mundane mendacity that I bristle at the notion of any laws that restrain me from acting with good judgement.

Regardless of the original intent of the federal government a lot of innovations have happened since which require a central agency. Education, FDA, defense, health care practices, EPA, and so on are issues that can't just be left to individual states because they affect everyone. For example, the pollutants Ohio dumps into the Ohio River is of concern to Kentucky. It's also good to have a national identity as it prevents civil war, once you start thinking about people in the country as us and them (something politics does a lot of), it becomes pretty easy to see your own countrymen as the enemy, which eventually results in a civil war that no one wins.

That said, I do agree the federal government has over stepped it's bounds, part of this comes from the fact that Senators no longer represent their states and part of it comes from the executive branch deciding it's above the law. I have ideas for systems that would correct this, but no one would want to implement them. The best way to fix it while working within the system is to vote for third parties. Once things are no longer a competition (or rather an agreement) between two parties, reforms can take place.

If something becomes a big enough problem, which NSA spying just might do, I could see the governors getting together and forcing the issue with a constitutional amendment but we are so far off from that being a possible reality right now that I'm not sure it's worth discussing... it's much better to convince people there's an issue first so that there's some actual weight behind lobbying governors (especially since many governors support it). But even then, the fed has ignored the constitution to run these programs in the first place... why would yet another law against it change anything?

MessageforAll
I'm not sure how this helps the people? I assume this is more a symbolic protest?
I mean; a state can't overrule a bill that's been signed by the president, can it?

Then how come were having the current gay marriage and weed legalization debacles?

Maybe somebody should take a Look-See where the NSA came from and why before they try to shut the thing down.

Whodunit and why?.

I have a stupid question here...but lets say the states are 100% successful and show some hardcore push back toward the abuses and free taking of state power unto the Feds, in contradiction of that pesky 10th amendment they want to forget exists...

What is to stop the NSA or Federal Government on other matters from saying 'Okay... You win.. we close'. The opening a map to what FEDERAL land is there ..say Oak Ridge? Just plant the new facility there. Or better yet, a Federal military base. Gotcha... Now the President can declare national security at risk by state action to impact the building within a legitimate part of the national security structure. Under THAT premise, they can do almost anything required to restore services and access to whatever is deemed critical to the security of the country.....and arrest or put down anyone required to accomplish it.

Err... I love the gesture, but unless the state is willing to go all the way with it (and NONE are at this stage) it just lets the feds sharpen their figurative knives and practice countering these measures before the states DO get to the stage of doing this for real, IMO.

Like Occupy... In the end? It accomplished nothing but to professionalize and radically advance U.S. police capability and experience core to put down future protest which may have had a chance otherwise.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The best answer i got for you: the NSA has dirt on whoever it wants to have dirt on. Its all in those hard drives. How much real resistance do you really think will be put up?

We are talking about people who can concoct a child porn ring into the middle of any state legislative body, and discredit the entire states legal standing.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


You have a real good point there. If it came down to TRUE threat against the NSA as an organization, I guess we would see some dirty tricks played that totally redefine the concept of dirty tricks.

If anyone is interested, I made a thread questioning who is behind the lobby group that is pushing for different states to enact this legislation. Found here.

Merely posing questions of course, and not implying anything. But if anyone has more info...

reply to post by freakjive


You can not sue the federal government.

You can sue the state, this new law only protects Tennessee from being sued.

Wrabbit2000
I have a stupid question here...but lets say the states are 100% successful and show some hardcore push back toward the abuses and free taking of state power unto the Feds, in contradiction of that pesky 10th amendment they want to forget exists...

What is to stop the NSA or Federal Government on other matters from saying 'Okay... You win.. we close'. The opening a map to what FEDERAL land is there ..say Oak Ridge? Just plant the new facility there. Or better yet, a Federal military base. Gotcha... Now the President can declare national security at risk by state action to impact the building within a legitimate part of the national security structure. Under THAT premise, they can do almost anything required to restore services and access to whatever is deemed critical to the security of the country.....and arrest or put down anyone required to accomplish it.

Err... I love the gesture, but unless the state is willing to go all the way with it (and NONE are at this stage) it just lets the feds sharpen their figurative knives and practice countering these measures before the states DO get to the stage of doing this for real, IMO.

Like Occupy... In the end? It accomplished nothing but to professionalize and radically advance U.S. police capability and experience core to put down future protest which may have had a chance otherwise.

edit on 22-1-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: Minor edit for consistency

Aside from their blackmail ability which was already mentioned. One thing the NSA is doing with data currently is taking US data that's outside the US at the time, and processing it in ways that are illegal on American soil. Just like we do to prisoners with places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. If we actually had a concentrated effort and banned the NSA from operating on US soil they would just move their base to someplace in Egypt or Somalia or where ever and do what they want free from legal oversight. We've taken the stance that the government is only bound by US laws if it's on US soil. Of course, then we subject non Americans on foreign soil to US laws as well. Double standards are amazing.

Someone tell me how NSA needs to spy on Americans... The only terrorsists here are the ones they are creating.
Since this is obviously a internal security issue.... Yea right the only internal threat we have is the fourth reich.
This isnt about terrorism its about predictive algerithmic analytic softare that moniteres and predicts society's moves and moods so they can better controll us and moniter the mode and progress of our rebellion if there were to be one.

The American people.. is the only entity that stands a chance of overthrowing the US.... If you took down the US puppet and pully system .... The rest of the world might be able to do the same.

All it would take.... is 1 city. 1 town 1 neighborhood too start it all....

reply to post by Evergreens


I think if serious and hard push back starts small, it'll be stomped without mercy and put down, possibly without the public even hearing it happened.

Personally, if this gets going as an internal US mess between the people and feds? I look for Wyoming or Utah to start it and from official levels. Those who have closely watched statements from places like SLC and Laramie County in Wyoming know there is a fight brewing there if the Feds come in on some things, and guns is one of them out there.

Once officialdom clashes, if that actually happens, then..well..Fort Sumter has a new modern name we'll all know instead.

reply to post by freakjive


Washington State has a Fourth Amendment Protection Act, as well. I think it is driven by Democrats here, but not sure.

Lenghty post - sorry guys

Lipton

MessageforAll
I'm not sure how this helps the people? I assume this is more a symbolic protest?
I mean; a state can't overrule a bill that's been signed by the president, can it?

Then how come were having the current gay marriage and weed legalization debacles?

Because those 2 issues are unique in that its not a standard across the nation. The issue with those 2 in particular is the legal status inside state boundaries.

We have states that have decriminalized marijuana for only medical purposes.
We have states that have decriminalized marijuana for recreational purposes.
We have states that criminalize possession of marijuana regardless of amount.

We have states that allow gay marriage.
We have states that allow for civil unions.
We have states that forbid the 2 listed above.

The specific legal part of the Constitution on the issues above is the US Constitution - Article 4 section 1 - Full Faith and Credit Clause

Article IV, Section 1:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.[5]

What is a public act?

public law

noun

1. Also called public act, public statute. a law or statute of a general character that applies to the people of a whole state or nation.

2. a branch of law dealing with the legal relationships between the state and individuals and with the relations among governmental agencies. Compare private law.

3. public international law.

If a person from Colorado travels outside their state to another state with marijuana, they can be charged with a crime in that state, even though the purchase / possession was lawful.

If 2 men / women are legally married because the state they reside in made same sex marriage lawful and in turn travel to a state that does not recognize it, there marital status can be ignored because the state they visited does not allow for gay marriage.

The Full Faith and Credit clause allows the Federal Government to establish the criteria in terms of what's lawful in one state will be recognized and accepted in another state. As of now the entire argument on those 2 topics are currently playing out and the state and federal level.

EX: You are a resident of Indiana and you have a lawfully purchased handgun. You take a vacation to Kansas and pack your gun in its box and secure it and head out. The moment you hit Illinois you are subject to their laws, which includes the manner in which firearms are secured / transported. Illinois law also requires a person to have a valid FOID card (essentially a license to open / purchase / transport a weapon). The FOID law made no distinction in terms of state citizenship and required any person to have that card in their possession (SCOTUS actually shot down that provision in terms of applying it to non Illinois citizens - The example is based on a real life incident).

However, under Federal Law (and in general so do your due diligence and get specifics before doing this) a citizen of one state, who travels through a second state, with the intent of nothing more than just travel to their final destination, is covered under 18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms

This is how it ties back in to the op and goes back to my position about the anger of the citizens towards government interference.

You have states that are refusing to comply with the constitutional criteria of full faith and credit. You have Illinois, which had their hand gun ban shot down by SCOTUS, only to reintroduce a new law that essentially was the law that was shot down.

You have Utah, which recently stated they wont recognize gay marriage, which again goes against court rulings.

What we are witnessing, imo, is government action running contrary to the will of the people. With the mess that was created after 9/11, we the people seemed to have thrown open the doors for government intrusion under false pretense.

When was the last time something like this occurred in the US?
The Civil War (for those not into history the civil war was over states rights, not slavery)

Outside the US?
Germany 1933

In this case simply replace Juden (Jew) with terrorist.

Anyone into history can see the causality.

The difference I am seeing is the citizens are starting to take notice that the government is running audible's and that the governments calls are doing more harm than good. I am hopeful that the citizens will see through the crap being put out by politicians and call them out on it before the Congress is burned down with blame going to the terrorists.

I hate Nazi comparisons however the plays look the same imo.

The one thing to watch for is how the Federal Government will respond to states that outright refuse to comply with Federal Law / Court Rulings - Posse Comitatus / Insurrection Act
Federal Law is the only thing that prevents active military from civilian law enforcement actions (doesn't apply to state units).

This was used during the 1960's when some black people wanted to go to an all white school. The governor refused to comply with Federal Law and as a result that state militia was federalized and sent in to enforce federal law.

They came close to doing that in Hurricane Katrina when the state / local government was failing to heed the warnings that evacuations must occur. President Bush brought that into discussion and was advised he would need to declare the city of new Orleans / State of Louisiana in a state of insurrection / rebellion in order to federalize the state units. Bush decided against that action and in turn we saw 2 commands for federal / state units.

Call your reps.. Let them know how you feel about the NSA / Government actions / laws / treaties. If the elected officials act contrary to the constituents will, then they need to be voted out of office.

In my opinion the reaction we are seeing at the State level towards Federal government actions / laws is ... well it gives me hope that maybe, just maybe, people will wake up and take back the government from the career hacks and special interest.

Absent citizen involvement, we might as well build a wall around the US and hang signs which read "Arbeit macht frei" at every port of entry.

Sorry I have to call Horse hockey on this one.
The only reason a Tennessee politician does anything is if it benefits them.
Most likely grandstanding for reelection votes.
They can not, on one hand, scream about the intrusions of the NSA and at the same time allow
the state patrol to seize cash and other property from people without a conviction.

jonathanturley.org... /

"A professional insurance adjuster, George Reby, was traveling through the state from New Jersey when he was stopped and asked by Officer Larry Bates if he had large amounts of cash. He said that he did — $22,000. The officer demanded the money and said that he was confiscating the money on suspicion of drug activity. That is it. The mere fact that he was carrying a large amount of cash was enough under this policy to seize the money. The police know that many out-of-state travelers never come back for the cash and they are then allowed to keep the money for their own uses at the department."

Side note I live in Tennessee So I get to see these shenanigans first hand.

reply to post by mash3d


I don't think so... I think there is a notable difference between our Federal representatives / government and our state reps / state government.

Federal has a tendency to get lost in the shuffle of everyday world events. Since the politicians are in Washington, in their own little world, they don't get bugged by the constituents to the extent State reps do.

If its becoming impossible for the Feds to do their job, then I fully support the State governments when they opt to act because the feds wont do their jobs.

Secondly, and I have seen this comment thrown around a lot on these forums, is the argument that some of the actions / laws the Federal Government pulls are in clear violation of the Constitution.

While the argument will be the States don't have the authority to do what they are doing, the simple fact they are doing "something" speaks volumes in my opinion. Is this not what the people talk about? Taking a stand with perceived injustices / actions outside of the law?

While we are one country, you have 50 states with their own sovereignty. While the Constitution was changed to allow for the people of each state to vote for their Senator, the original intent of the Senate was to act in representation of the States and not the people (hence the compromise).

The House of Representatives = The People
The US Senate = The States

US states are sovereign entities when it comes to a large portion of how they conduct their affairs. If the federal government fails, why is it the states can't pick up the slack to protect their citizens?

I will gladly accept / support the States who try to make a difference / take a stand. anything less and they are no different than the FEds.