Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Posted by Michael Boldin
In response, there’s been a bit of a firestorm from people across the political spectrum. Local communities in Colorado sent out the first warning shots, passing resolutions and ordinances rejecting such power earlier this year. Then, at the close of the 2012 state legislative session, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed House Bill 1160, making that state the first to paw a law not only rejecting the federal act, but fully banning any state agency from cooperating with the feds on it.
Currently, more than 15 local communities have done the same. Michigan is also considering a bill that is similar to Virginia’s. And today, Texas State Representative Lyle Larson introduced House Bill 149 (HB149), the Texas Liberty Preservation Act. This might be the strongest anti-NDAA bill introduced yet.
It states, in part:
ACTION ITEMS
If you live in Texas, contact your state representative and senator, and encourage them to support HB149. You can find legislative contact information HERE.
Texans on Facebook (HERE) can also get involved in a grassroots organizing group. this is essential for legislative success.
Urge your county commission or town council to consider a local Liberty Preservation Resolution HERE.
If you live in outside of Texas, contact your state representative of senator and urge them to introduce state level liberty preservation legislation. You can find model legislation HERE.
Track nationwide efforts against NDAA detention HERE.
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Texas HB 149 Relating to the Texas Liberty Preservation Act.
Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents
- EmailShare
In response, there’s been a bit of a firestorm from people across the political spectrum. Local communities in Colorado sent out the first warning shots, passing resolutions and ordinances rejecting such power earlier this year. Then, at the close of the 2012 state legislative session, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed House Bill 1160, making that state the first to paw a law not only rejecting the federal act, but fully banning any state agency from cooperating with the feds on it.
Currently, more than 15 local communities have done the same. Michigan is also considering a bill that is similar to Virginia’s. And today, Texas State Representative Lyle Larson introduced House Bill 149 (HB149), the Texas Liberty Preservation Act. This might be the strongest anti-NDAA bill introduced yet.
It states, in part:
Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81) violate portions of federal law, the United States Constitution, and the Texas Constitution and, as such, are invalid and illegal in this state.It also, like Virginia’s law, requires full noncompliance with the federal act:
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 Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81). Any act to enforce or attempt to enforce those laws is in violation of this subchapter.But, the Texas legislation takes it a step further, codifying into State law criminal penalties for violation of the act by even federal agents:
A person who is an official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of a corporation providing services to the United States commits an offense if the person enforces or attempts to enforce a statute, a rule or regulation, an order, or any law of the United States in violation of this subchapter.This coming legislative session, Texas won’t be alone in its efforts. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect at least 10 other states considering the same. And potentially dozens of counties and cities can be expected to move along these lines as well.
An offense under Subsection
(a) is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by confinement for a term not to exceed one year, a fine of not more than $10,000, or both the confinement and the fine.
ACTION ITEMS
If you live in Texas, contact your state representative and senator, and encourage them to support HB149. You can find legislative contact information HERE.
Texans on Facebook (HERE) can also get involved in a grassroots organizing group. this is essential for legislative success.
Urge your county commission or town council to consider a local Liberty Preservation Resolution HERE.
If you live in outside of Texas, contact your state representative of senator and urge them to introduce state level liberty preservation legislation. You can find model legislation HERE.
Track nationwide efforts against NDAA detention HERE.
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Texas HB 149 Relating to the Texas Liberty Preservation Act.
|
Legislative Session: 83(R) | Council Document: 83R 1220 JSC-D |
|
| Last Action: | 11/12/2012 H Filed |
| Caption Version: | Introduced |
| Caption Text: | Relating to the Texas Liberty Preservation Act; providing penalties. |
| Author: | Larson |
| Subjects: | Criminal Procedure--General (I0208) TEXAS LIBERTY PRESERVATION ACT (P0593) PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPARTMENT OF (V0251) |
| Actions: (descending date order) |
| Description | Comment | Date |
Time | Journal Page | |||||
| H | Filed | 11/12/2012 | |||||||
|
83R1220 JSC-D
By: Larson H.B. No. 149
A
BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN
ACT
relating to the
Texas Liberty Preservation Act; providing penalties.
BE
IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. (a)
This Act shall be known as the "Texas Liberty Preservation Act."
(b) The
legislature finds that:
(1) the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
authorizes the United States federal government to exercise only those powers
specifically delegated to it under Article I, Section 8, United States
Constitution;
(2) the guaranty of the constitutional limitations on federal
power is a matter of contract between the several states, including the State
of Texas, and the federal government at the time the United States Constitution
was ratified and subsequently amended by the Bill of Rights;
(3) Article VI, United States Constitution, provides that the
laws of the United States federal government are the supreme law of the land
only if those laws are adopted in accordance with the powers delegated to the
federal government in the United States Constitution;
(4) the President of the United States has asserted that the
Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Pub. L. No. 107-40), enacted in
2001, authorizes the president to indefinitely detain, without charge, any
person, including a citizen of the United States or a lawful resident alien,
regardless of whether the person is apprehended inside or outside the borders
of the United States;
(5) Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81) authorize:
(A) indefinite detention of persons apprehended within the
United States without charge or trial;
(B) prosecution by military tribunals under the law of war for
persons apprehended within the United States; and
(C) transfer of persons apprehended within the United States
to foreign jurisdictions;
(6) in authorizing the actions described by Subdivision (5) of
this subsection, Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81) are inimical to the liberty,
security, and well-being of the citizens of the State of Texas by violating:
(A) the Texas Constitution;
(B) the limits of federal power authorized by Article I,
Section 8, United States Constitution;
(C) the legal doctrine of Posse Comitatus under 18 U.S.C.
Section 1385 by authorizing the armed forces of the United States to police the
United States; and
(D) the following provisions of the United States
Constitution:
(i) Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 (ensuring the right to seek a habeas corpus);
(ii) the First Amendment (ensuring the right to petition the
federal government for the redress of grievances);
(iii) the Fourth Amendment (ensuring the right to be free from
unreasonable search and seizure);
(iv) the Fifth Amendment (requiring capital or infamous crimes
to be brought before a grand jury before charging the defendant and prohibiting
deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law);
(v) the Sixth Amendment (ensuring the right to a speedy trial
by an impartial jury in the state or district where the offense was alleged to
have been committed, the right to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusations and charges levied, the right to retain legal counsel, and the
right to confront witnesses);
(vi) the Eighth Amendment (prohibiting excessive bail and
fines and prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment); and
(vii) the Fourteenth Amendment (prohibiting deprivation of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law); and
(7) the actions described by Subdivision (5) of this
subsection as authorized by Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81), and the
enforcement of those actions, are illegal within this state.
SECTION 2. Chapter
421, Government Code, is amended by adding Subchapter G to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER
G. TEXAS LIBERTY PRESERVATION ACT
Sec. 421.101. CERTAIN
PORTIONS OF THE FEDERAL NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012
INVALID. Sections 1021 and 1022 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81)
violate portions of federal law, the United States Constitution, and the Texas
Constitution and, as such, are invalid and illegal in this state.
Sec. 421.102. POLICY;
VIOLATION OF SUBCHAPTER. 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 Sections
1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Pub. L. No. 112-81). Any act to enforce
or attempt to enforce those laws is in violation of this subchapter.
Sec. 421.103. OFFENSES;
PENALTIES. (a) A person who is an
official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of a
corporation providing services to the United States commits an offense if the
person enforces or attempts to enforce a statute, a rule or regulation, an
order, or any law of the United States in violation of this subchapter.
(b) An
offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by confinement
for a term not to exceed one year, a fine of not more than $10,000, or both the
confinement and the fine.
(c) A
person who is a public officer or employee of this state commits an offense if
that person enforces or attempts to enforce a statute, a rule or regulation, an
order, or any law of the United States in violation of this subchapter.
(d) An
offense under Subsection (c) is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by confinement
for a term not to exceed 180 days, a fine of not more than $5,000, or both the
confinement and the fine.
Sec. 421.104. REPORT. The Texas Department of Public Safety shall
report to the governor and the legislature any attempt by the federal
government to implement Section 1021 or 1022 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-81) through the Texas
Department of Public Safety or another state agency.
SECTION 3. This
Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the
members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas
Constitution. If this Act does not
receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect
September 1, 2013.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment