We're on an Apollo 13 mission: Gen Kranz the Flight Director at the time said,"When bad things happen, we just calmly laid out all the options and failure was not one of them". Tough and competent, "we are forever accountable for what we do or fail to do. We will never take anything for granted. We will never fall short of our knowledge or our skills".
For anyone unfamiliar with the concept of state nullification, it was the idea expressed by then sitting vice president Thomas Jefferson when he authored what came to be known as theKentucky Resolutions of 1798.The resolutions made the case that the federal government is a creature of the states and that states have the authority to judge the constitutionality of the federal government’s laws and decrees. He also argued that states should refuse to enforce laws which they deem unconstitutional. Nullification carries with it the force of the state or local law. It cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the U.S. Constitution. It cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order. It cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court if the people in the state reject the Court’s opinion. It is the people of a state or local community asserting their rights, acting as a political society in its highest sovereign capacity. It is the moderate, middle way that wisely avoids harsh remedies like secession on the one hand and slavish, unlimited submission on the other.(Full Article)
Back in 2012, 40states petitioned to secedefrom the US Government, this proceeded by a petition to “strip the citizenship” of those who have petitioned for secession and another calling for theirdeportation.The Texas petition, for example, has more than 80,000 signatures. The original Louisiana petition has topped 30,000. Florida has also crossed the threshold. Though the numbers keep climbing, the signatures for all 40 states now total at least 533,000.
What to do:
Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn't depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state. Nullification is any act or set of acts, which has as its end result, a particular federal law being rendered null and void, or just plain unenforceable in your area. OK this is a drastic situation for the population of America as a whole have had enough of our government and most countries around the world hate The United States, hell I did not create this hatred nor did any other good citizen of America. This documentary you're about to watch covers just what can we do and what is already being done. The word NULLIFICATION is a very powerful word in The United States Constitution. Take the time to watch this documentary, this is a revolution that has begun without guns for it's a war fought by suits and briefcases trying to change The Constitution.
Nothing in the Constitution requires a state to help the feds violate your rights. The new NSA data center in Utah requires 1.7 million gallons of water every single day to operate. Billions of 4th Amendment violations require massive supercomputers and the water to cool them. Take these steps to support the4th Amendmentin your state and push back against NSA Spying. Nullification can create a meltdown. News4All
It seems government spying is one of the few things that can unite disparate groups on the left and the right. Led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit law firm, more than 20 groups from across the political spectrum filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the National Security Agency, FBI and the U.S. government challenging the constitutionality of widespread collection of telephone data. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It will be months before the case goes anywhere, but here’re five questions you’re probably asking about the complicated legal maneuver.
1. Who is suing the NSA? Everyone. Well, not quite. But the list of plaintiffs in the lawsuit is pretty long – it includes churches, nonprofits and political organizations. The amazing thing about the lawsuit is the bipartisanship of it all. One of the plaintiffs is Greenpeace. There are three pro-gun groups on the list. And two groups advocating for drug legalization. How often do you see environmental groups teaming up with gun rights activists? When it comes to the government surveillance, all politically active groups have reason to fear government surveillance, said Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, one of the plaintiffs in the case. “I think there is probably nothing that our groups agree on except for this,” Buttar said during a Wednesday interview with Watchdog.org. “It is offensive to Americans from all walks of life.”
2. Why are they filing a lawsuit? The plaintiffs argue the NSA and other agencies (they are also suing the FBI, the heads of the NSA and FBI, and the United States as an entity, which brings Attorney General Eric Holder into the mix as well) has violated the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution “as well as statutory prohibitions and limitations on electronic surveillance.” The groups argue that they have to stand on their own, but they also argue that all members of their staff and any person they have had contact with could be a party to the lawsuit because of the breadth of the NSA’s “dragnet electronic surveillance” collection of phone data. Aside from privacy rights concerns, the groups bringing the lawsuit say the NSA tracking threatens the right of free association guaranteed by the First Amendment. “People who hold controversial views — whether it’s about gun ownership policies, drug legalization, or immigration — often must express views as a group in order to act and advocate effectively,” said Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. ”But fear of individual exposure when participating in political debates over high-stakes issues can dissuade people from taking part.”
3. So they are upset about the government collecting phone records? Yes, but that’s not all. The plaintiffs make it clear that the collection of the so-called telephone metadata (information about the location and duration of calls, along with numbers dialed) is unconstitutional in their view. But after the NSA and other security agencies gather the data, they have to sift through it somehow, ostensibly to find patterns of calls that might indicate someone is involved in terrorist activity. Any searches of that collected data is equally unconstitutional, the plaintiffs argue, because it is “neither relevant to an existing authorized criminal investigation nor to an existing authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism.” The government maintains that any search of that database is only done with the permission of a court — a June memo from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said “surveillance programs like this one … are designed to strike the appropriate balance between national security interests and civil liberties and privacy concerns” — but it’s a court that is top secret and issues warrants that are equally top secret, so it’s hard to tell.
4. What does this have to do with that Edward Snowden guy the media keeps talking about? Nothing directly, but everything, indirectly. While much of media continues to be fascinated with NSA-leaker Edward Snowden’s international search for asylum beyond the reach of the U.S. government, this is far more serious than a reality show-type coverage the cable networks are giving it. The lawsuit cuts to the heart of the questionably legal activity exposed by Snowden, a former contractor who worked for the NSA before leaking information about the federal government’s electronic dragnet and going on the run. As part of their court filing, the plaintiffs included some of the classified documents leaked by Snowden. So even though he is not involved in this case at all, the lawsuit would not exist without him.
5. What do the plaintiffs want out of this? The plaintiffs are asking a federal judge to impose an immediate injunction to shut down the federal government’s electronic surveillance program, which the plaintiffs say started all the way back in 2001 and was expanded in 2006 and again in 2011. They also want the judge to rule the program unconstitutional because they say it violates the First Amendment protection of free speech and free association, the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fifth Amendment protection for privacy rights. They also want all data collected by the program destroyed. Buttar said it will be months, or even years before there is a definitive ruling in the case. But now that the government has admitted the existence of the electronic surveillance programs, judges will have to consider the merits of the programs. “That admission gives us the opportunity to hurdle one of the biggest challenges we’ve faced in previous cases challenging the government’s spying programs,” he said. Eric Boehm is a national reporter for Watchdog.org. Contact him at Eric@PAIndependent.com and on Twitter @EricBoehm87 MichaelSavage4Prez
Sen. Rand Paul discusses Americans' continuous loss of liberty through the lens of Ray Bradbury's dystopian classic "Fahrenheit 451." This was posted in Aug 9,1912 yes Pod a year ago. SenatorRandPaul
