PDA

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




ItsTime
01-22-2014, 09:31 AM
NASHVILLE, January 22, 2014– As eight states have introduced legislation to keep the NSA out of their borders, Tennessee’s newly introduced legislation packs the strongest punch yet.

The bill is known as the “Tennessee Fourth Amendment Protection Act”. State Senator Stacey Campfield (R) and State Representative Andy Holt (R) are the Senate and House sponsors. The bill was drafted and lobbied for by the Tenth Amendment Center, a national think-tank, which seeks to impede unconstitutional federal laws, regulations and entities on the state level.

“We have an out of control federal agency spying on pretty much everybody in the world. I don’t think the....


Read more and share: http://benswann.com/breaking-tennessee-files-historic-legislation-throws-nsa-facility-out-of-state/

:toady:

RonZeplin
01-22-2014, 09:50 AM
State Rep. Joe Carr (R) signed on as a co-sponsor to the Act this morning. Carr is Tea Party candidate currently running a campaign to unseat US Senator Lamar Alexander (R).
Nice!

kathy88
01-22-2014, 10:23 AM
Anyone know what other states are pursuing similar legislation?

jbauer
01-22-2014, 11:06 AM
Contacted my state rep and senator. hopefully I wont be the only one who does so. I can't imagine they get many people who are at their heals the very day a bill summary hits the floor. Surely they'll notice!!!

ClydeCoulter
01-22-2014, 11:14 AM
Contacted my state rep and senator. hopefully I wont be the only one who does so. I can't imagine they get many people who are at their heals the very day a bill summary hits the floor. Surely they'll notice!!!

Okay, people in Tennessee, on the phones! :)

I hope they stop the TSA goons there soon, too.

tangent4ronpaul
01-22-2014, 12:07 PM
Anyone know what other states are pursuing similar legislation?

"If the feds aren't going to address the issue, then it's up to the states to do it," says David Taylor, a GOP member of the Washington state House of Representatives whose Yakima Valley district hosts an NSA listening post. Taylor's bipartisan bill, introduced last week, would cut off "material support, participation or assistance" from the state and its contractors to any federal agency that collects data or metadata on people without a warrant. Practically speaking, it would mean severing ties between the NSA and state law enforcement, blocking state universities from serving as NSA research facilities and recruiting grounds, and cutting off the water and power to the agency's Yakima facility.

Similar bills, some of them less broad, have been floated in California, Oklahoma, Indiana, Missouri and Kansas. Others are expected in coming months in Michigan, Arizona, and Utah. Unlike the symbolic resolutions that oppose the NSA's warrantless spying, which have passed the Pennsylvania House and the California Senate, few, if any, of the more consequential anti-NSA bills are likely to become law. But their existence underscores the depth of grassroots opposition to the agency's dragnet surveillance programs, and the willingness of lawmakers from both parties to take a stand.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/state-legislators-offnow-nsa-spying

-t

TaftFan
01-22-2014, 03:49 PM
I suspect this will be challenged via the supremacy clause on the same basis of McCulloch vs. Maryland, but I hope it the state does it anyway.

jllundqu
01-22-2014, 03:54 PM
Utah needs to jump on this bandwagon! It's the server farm in Utah that is the mother-load... Cut off power and water to that place and the Deathstar takes a big hit.

Arizona too, for that matter. Hoover Dam I'm sure supplies power to many NSA facilities.

Who in Arizona would have the cojones to drop this on the Hill? Sweickart? Salmon?

Kick ass, Tennessee!

CPUd
01-22-2014, 04:37 PM
They are still about 3-5 years away from being able to build the type of system they are talking about in the article. ORNL is a DOE facility, though they do have a separate building over there that is guarded by some scary looking dudes. That's where they keep the ETs :)

Origanalist
01-22-2014, 05:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8ANUo8BnYoo

tod evans
01-22-2014, 05:31 PM
The feds will cut back on the free money programs and the politicians will cave.

Sounds good though.

DGambler
01-22-2014, 05:38 PM
Isn't this the state that also has no refusal blood taking checkpoints?

Occam's Banana
01-22-2014, 05:50 PM
These shenanigans I am approve.

eduardo89
01-22-2014, 06:54 PM
I suspect this will be challenged via the supremacy clause on the same basis of McCulloch vs. Maryland, but I hope it the state does it anyway.

I don't see how the supremacy clause applies here, the state is not attempted to usurp any powers granted exclusively to the federal government by the Constitution. In McCulloch vs. Maryland the state tried to tax an agent of the federal government, which SCOTUS ruled is unconstitutional. That said, states are not obliged to help the federal government if they do wish to.

ZENemy
01-22-2014, 07:06 PM
The feds will cut back on the free money programs and the politicians will cave.

Sounds good though.

Yup.

The system is literally designed to protect itself from the inside.

Occam's Banana
01-22-2014, 08:23 PM
I suspect this will be challenged via the supremacy clause on the same basis of McCulloch vs. Maryland, but I hope it the state does it anyway.


I don't see how the supremacy clause applies here, the state is not attempted to usurp any powers granted exclusively to the federal government by the Constitution. In McCulloch vs. Maryland the state tried to tax an agent of the federal government, which SCOTUS ruled is unconstitutional. That said, states are not obliged to help the federal government if they do wish to.

Speaking of which, here's something LRC has up with today's articles: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/gary-north/how-the-banksters-took-control/

The Supreme Court Case That Handed America Over to the Bankers

The case was McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

The legal issue: Could the state of Maryland tax the Second Bank of the United States? It was a private bank.

The issue, as stated by Chief Justice Marshall in a long, detailed decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=17&invol=316), was this: Does the Constitution allow Congress to charter a bank? That was what Congress did in 1791: the [First] Bank of the United States. It was a central bank. Its charter lapsed in 1811.

The Second Bank of the United States was chartered by Congress in 1816.

In 1818, Maryland voted to tax the Bank. The Bank refused to pay. The Supreme Court decided in favor of McCulloch, an agent of the Bank.

Here is the standard version: “The case presented two questions: Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?” (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1819/1819_0) This is the textbook account. It is Marshall’s account.

The historical record does not support this limited description.

Marshall deliberately refused to deal with the central legal issue raised by the state of Maryland. That issue was not whether the Congress had the authority to charter a corporation. Rather, it was this:
Does the United States Constitution authorize Congress to delegate federal sovereignty to a private corporation?

In Marshall’s long decision, he summarized the position of the state of Maryland.

[... more at link ...]

/derail