jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (20 posts)

Nullify the NDAA: Virginia House Bill 1160.

  1. OLYHOOCH profile image62
    OLYHOOCHposted 5 years ago

    Introduced in the Virginia House of Delegates is House Bill 1160 (HB1160) which “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”

    The bill is sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall and was introduced on 01-16-12. It has been assigned to the House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee: #2 Civil. Visit this link for information on this Subcommittee.

    The bill reads as follows:


    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

    1. § 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, political subdivision of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, employee of either acting in his official capacity, or any member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty, may engage in any activity that aids an agency of or the armed forces of the United States in the execution of 50 U.S.C. 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-18, § 1021) in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States in violation of Article I, Section 8 or 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.

    Virginia is now the first state in the nation to introduce and consider a version of the Liberty Preservation Act (click here for model legislation for your state) in response to unconstitutional kidnapping provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. Sources close the to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect up to ten states considering various laws or resolutions in response to the NDAA in the 2012 state legislative session.

    CLICK HERE to track the status of NDAA nullification legislation around the country.


    http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 … bill-1660/

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oly, I am in favor of any actions that will reverse the Patriot Act and the detention sections of the NDAA-2012. They represent a dangerous trend to establish a parallel justice system under the military, outside the bounds of the Constitution, fashioned after the German model of the 1930's. Bills passed in 10 state houses are not enough. We need bills passed in 50 state houses.

      1. OLYHOOCH profile image62
        OLYHOOCHposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Just trying to keep everybody caught up on this, NDAA Crap, as I call it.

        It is not American, and, Never will be, I hope.

        OLY

        1. mom101 profile image61
          mom101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oly,

          Here is just my opinion.

          We really do not need bills nullified. Why? Cause legally, we have no pres.

          I am sure you and others have been keeping up with the trial in Ga.

          ..................As it is, it takes only ONE registered voter in each state to challenge the citizenship of an intended person running for office.

          My worry is, have we become such a blinded people? 

          the fact that the majority of people who fail or just simply do not care enough to look at what is going on is scary as hell.

          Some think the birth certificate issue is a dead horse. Then, why are experts testifying that it is not?

          When are people going to wake up and see what is happening?

          Let's say for a thought, the issue is in fact true. Then, would that mean, the laws passed and or voted in under this person null and void?

          Weeeeeeez in trouble folks.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "But Quilligrapher, the states aren't allowed to overrule federal laws. And even if they were, Judge Marshall - and countless judges since - have established precedent that the SCOTUS can overturn state laws that it doesn't like"

        1. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hi, Evan.
          Good to chat with you again. I see that your post is enclosed in quotation marks and your source is not identified. I am wondering if you quoted accurately.

          However, as it might apply to the to Opening Post:
          1. House Bill 1160 (HB1160) in the Virginia House of Delegates does not attempt to overrule federal laws.
          2. To my knowledge, the Supreme Court of the United States does not overturn state laws it “doesn’t like.” The court overturns state laws when the interpretation of the majority finds they are contrary to the Constitution.
          Nevertheless, I suspect you already know this. Have a good one, Evan.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, that was me being sarcastic. That would be your argument.

            SCOTUS does NOT have the authority to over turn state laws, but they do anyway. However, I brought this up to point out the obvious problem with liberal interpretations of the Constitution.

  2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Nullification! The Spirit of '98 is alive and well!!

    (that is, the Spirit of 1798...)

  3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Only one candidate running has the cajones to get rid of NDAA.

    Ron Paul.

    Will this convince ANYONE? No. Even the liberals will still vote for Obama.

    Your freedoms are forfeit as the elite struggle to make the bankrupt state use its force to keep you in line.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi again, Evan.

      Please explain to me how Ron Paul, IF elected, would reverse The Patriot Act and the freedom crushing provisions of NDAA-2012 on his own and without the support of the congress. Only Congress makes laws and presidential vetoes can be overridden.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        He wouldn't enforce them.

        I believe it was Andrew Jackson who said, basically:

        "That's great that the Congress Passed a law; really! Good for them! Now let's see them enforce it!"

        Everyone seems to have forgotten the most basic of rules about the US federal government: One branch can nullify the others.

        The US is supposed to be a "do nothing" government because, usually, when someone wants to "do something", it means take away freedom.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          G'evening Evan.

          Thanks for your "Ron Paul" solution to the Patriot Act and the serious detention issues in NDAA-2012.  You claimed on behalf of Ron Paul, "Only one candidate running has the cajones to get rid of NDAA." When I ask how he would get rid of NDAA, you reply "he wouldn't enforce them" roll To me, your reply is both shortsighted and meaningless. Being passive is not reversing them!

          I was really hoping you, as Ron Paul's champion, would offer a solution with substance instead of another campaign slogan. Therefore, I will try again to address your first claim.

          Please explain to me how Ron Paul, IF elected, would reverse The Patriot Act and the freedom crushing provisions of the NDAA-2012 on his own and without the support of the congress. The intent is to prevent ANY president in the future from using them to encroach on a citizen's right to due process and a speedy trial.

          Have a good night, Evan. Welcome back from your time-out.

        2. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Evan, Part ni.
          Thanks also for misquoting Andrew Jackson. Your reference is a perfect example to cite when discussing The Patriot Act. President Jackson is alleged to have said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" in reaction to the Supreme Court decision in Worchester v. Georgia, 1832. (1) The Cherokee nation argued its claim of sovereignty before the US Supreme Court and won. President Jackson’s decision not to enforce the court’s ruling is a national disgrace that we, as Americans, should never forget. Some might argue that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was the Cherokee’s version of today’s Patriot Act. President Jackson enforced this unjust statute even after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the tribe. So much for relying on Presidents to act in a “righteous” manner!   

          (1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jac … an_removal

      2. AngelTrader profile image60
        AngelTraderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Your Congress, like the UK Government or the ones in Australia, NZ and South Africa don't pass LAWS! They pass self serving STATUTES that you, as a freeman, can deny CONSENT to. Which is exactly what Andrew Jackson was alluding to...it's only enforceable if you acquiesce and STAND UNDER (when any official asks you 'Do you understand' they are forming a contract with you, in saying 'yes' you are abiding by their rules and thus their STATUTES).

        The only law is COMMON LAW. The LIE that Governments pass 'Laws' must be broken. They all create statutes in order to protect themselves and generate MONEY, that's all it is about...commerce.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Angel Trader. I do not believe I have had the honor of exchanging views with you before. I am happy to meet you in this thread.

          I think you are saying laws, like The Patriot Act, are mere statutes about commerce and freemen do not need to consent to them. If I understand you correctly, it would appear you misjudge the vast difference between theory and practice. Your position might sound good in Political Science 101 but it fails to represent reality in America 2012.

          Are you saying American citizen Jose Padilla should have denied “consent” when the government refused visitation and consultation by an attorney? Did he, in your opinion, “acquiesce and STAND UNDER” by [i]voluntarily[i] remaining in prison for three years as an “enemy combatant” waiting to be charged and tried by a jury? Are you suggesting an official asked him “Do you understand” and he responded with the wrong answer? We are discussing laws that allow the President, the military, and their appointed agents, at their discretion, to treat a US citizen’s right of habeas corpus as optional.

          In reality, our Congress does pass LAWS, as do our State legislatures. I have learned those drawn into the legal system are not asked if they consent to being detained or prosecuted. I believe our jails are full of residents who did not give their consent.

          Thanks for your comment, AT. I really think that I misunderstood the point of your post, which would make most of my reply irrelevant. President Jackson, BTW, spent much of his pre-presidential life engaged in racial cleansing. Your observation concerning what exactly “Andrew Jackson was alluding to...it's only enforceable if you acquiesce and STAND UNDER” does not agree with my research.(1)

          (1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jac … an_removal

  4. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Ron Paul...the new Messiah.

    Freedom for all! Except females. 1/2 the population. Good luck.

  5. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Obama could not close Guantanamo thanks to Congress, can't appoint federal judges thanks to Congress, and can't get any give and take on the deficit and debt solutions.

    The only way Ron Paul as president does what he wants is if the House, who controls the agenda, let him.
    Unless he wants an Imperial Presidency like Cheney did.

    1. OLYHOOCH profile image62
      OLYHOOCHposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      As of today, I have no choice as to who could get us out of this mess.

      Lovemychris, you are correct in your answer.

      I am glad to see, some of us have our eye on ALL Issues.

      OLY

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, I hope they do something about that filibuster nonsense....

        I feel as if my vote was annulled by this Congress, who blocked everything my vote stood for.

        1. OLYHOOCH profile image62
          OLYHOOCHposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          WE, don't count anymore. That is why WE must stand up and say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

          The Year of 2012 is going to be a Hum-Dinger.

          If, and I say, IF, we make it to the Election of 2012, this will go down in History.

          Wait and see, if I am not right.

          OLY

 
working