ABOUT TOM WOODS

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of 11 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Meltdown (on the financial crisis). A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods has appeared on MSNBC, CNBC, FOX News, FOX Business, C-SPAN, Bloomberg Television, and hundreds of radio programs... (Read More)



The Tom Woods App


State Opposition to NDAA Grows

17th February 2012      by: Tom Woods     

The Tenth Amendment Center reports:

State and local resistance to detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act continues to snowball.

On Tuesday, the Virginia House overwhelming passed “A BILL to prevent any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

The House of Delegates approved HB1160 96-4. It now moves on to the Virginia Senate for consideration.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, the Arizona Senate Border Security, Federalism and States Sovereignty Committee approved SB1182 6-1, bringing it one step away from a full Senate vote. The bill, “prohibits this state and agencies of this state from participating in the implementation of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 and classifies the act of attempting to enforce or enforcing these sections as a class 1 misdemeanor.”

The Arizona and Virginia legislatures join lawmakers in Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington considering laws or resolutions pushing back against NDAA detention. And sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee indicate several more states will follow suit in the next two weeks.

Resistance to indefinite detention without due process is not limited to states. Six local governments have passed resolutions condemning sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. Earlier this week, the Town Council of Macomb, N.Y. unanimously passed a resolution, and Fairfax, Calif. approved a similar resolution 4-1. On Wednesday, New Shoreham, R.I. also passed a resolution opposing NDAA detention.

“Most Americans recognize that the federal government rarely, if ever, relinquishes power once it grasps it. So state and local governments are taking James Madison’s words to heart and interposing on behalf of their citizens,” Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey said.

Some argue that sections 1021 and 1022 don’t actually authorize indefinite detention of persons on U.S. soil, but Maharrey says their assurances shouldn’t provide much comfort.

“The very fact that so many legal experts come up with so many diverse readings of those NDAA sections should give us all pause,” he said. “The language is vague and undefined. Are we really going to trust the judgment and good intentions of Pres. Obama or whichever Republican sits in the White House to protect us? That seems like a pretty bad plan.”

To track state and local resistance to NDAA detention, click HERE.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Margarita-Szechenyi/100002170943319 Margarita Szechenyi

    Excellent!  But I think that the bills you quoted fall short of truly protecting their citizens from NDAA & The Patriot Act if they don’t also declare that any federal agent or U.S. military personnel attempting anything that would violate due process rights and/or constitute unlawful search & seizure will be arrested by that State or by that County Sherriff etc. as appropriate like in the bill being promoted to the Bowling Green City Council members for introduction.  The group in Bowling Green also needs signatures on their petition to get their bill introduced: http://www.change.org/petitions/local-news-ask-bowling-green-city-council-to-take-action-on-ndaa

  • jen

    This is all good news.  Though  I am wondering if it would be wise to go a step further and state they will observe and report all NDAA activities carried out in that state by federal agencies???   Interestingly, mainstream media is not covering this opposition to NDAA like they did with good, tough immigration laws that a few states passed.

    As NDAA is so powerful, it doesn’t require state involvement. Hence, these state bills appear to be more symbolic than a true nullfication or anything that would alleviate anything NDAA allows. Correct if I am wrong in this interpretation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michaelboldin Michael Boldin

    Each step forward is good, IMO.  Even a non-binding resolution will educate a large mass of people that there is a role for states and local communities.  Noncompliance on huge levels would put a serious kink in their armor.

    And arrest?  well, while I agree that it’s likely needed at some point, it could also slow down progress with people who aren’t educated on the process or ready to move that far down the line.

    But – Tennessee, for example – is considering legislation that makes federal kidnapping a felony.  check it out here - http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/02/ndaa-nullification-tennessee-bills-propose-kidnapping-charges-for-federal-agents/

  • http://twitter.com/10thComm Mike Maharrey

    Thanks for posting this Tom!

  • uk6strings

    “The Arizona and Virginia legislatures join lawmakers in Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington considering laws or resolutions pushing back against NDAA detention. And sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee indicate several more states will follow suit in the next two weeks.”

    This is great news – but I can’t help but not understand how the mainstream supports States preventing agencies from participating in parts of a federal law but do not support a State’s right to nullify a Federal law completely.

  • http://twitter.com/jasonxe jasonxe

    They could just support http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3785 Ron Paul bill to remove section 1021 from the NDAA

  • jen

    I posed the same question in the comment below.  Perhaps because there is a lack of political will to match the harshness of NDAA.  Preventing state participation is one thing and nullification is another.

    Unfortunate that worldwide you see that good political will is usually not as much as needed, and the vile political and central banking class around the world always are steps further than the common man.  Hence, the common man so to speak (who does not get secret handouts) cannot win.  They appear to know what the common man will do in the future and already have plans to outmaneuver the aveage joe steps ahead.  So, when the average joe gets around to getting their arms around an issue and mustering up political will, the ruling class has already accommodated for that ‘step forward’ and are already many steps ahead.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Schooler/100003032488972 William Schooler

    There is the example Mr. Woods, your in-depth idea transformed into actions by the 10th Amendment, what a combination, though not perfect because nothing ever is but definitely moving in the correct direction towards increased liberty.

    When I grow up I want to be just like you guys, great with ideas and excellent with implementations standing in A Republic telling ourselves wow that was one hell of a job, glad we did it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michaelboldin Michael Boldin
  • jen

    Thanks.  The Tennessee legislation is good and something to directly deal with NDAA.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Todd-Shoenfelt/100000327394374 Todd Shoenfelt

    Sounds a lot like nullification.  I wonder who gave them that idea?

  • Bruce

    I hear where you are coming from Jen.  I think the teeth are in that most of these resolutions pave the way for our state and local police to meet the feds at the state border…meeting force with force if need be.  If we do not periodically re-affirm our rights and the intentions of our peace officers and the cities/states they represent then those who wish to install a police state are all the more free to do so.  More plainly stated-if we sit back and do nothing, then we deserve what we get.

  • Sharon G

    How is it possible that news stations are not reporting on this treasonous law?  That is unbelievable.  Whatever happened to the Woodwards and Bernsteins of yesteryear?  Are they all owned by the government?  Thank God there are some sane people speaking out about this though.  I pray this starts to grow throughout the country and that people start realizing what this law means to we the people.  It blows my mind that members of Congress like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Allen West and others, voted for this law.  How could they?

  • Complexphenom

    Thanks Tom!

  • john

     because mainstream media is in “OBAHAMA’s” back pocket with their lips stuck to his ass!!!

  • Brutus

    They are (or were) considering one in Missouri, that if the Senate approves it, would require that the Missouri Legislature, executive and Judicial Branches refuse to cooperate or enforce all federal laws it deems unconstitutional. I wrote my state senator urging him to support it. I don’t know if it will pass though.

  • Brutus

    I believe that bill for Missouri is called SJR 145.

  • Speckk

    NDAA pretty much sailed through both houses. I don’t see belligerent, power hungry congress critters pulling back a bill from which they already failed to ammend out offensive, unconstitutional provisions despite grass roots opposition.

    Since the Feds have failed us, this could become a strong win for States rights. The NDAA provisions are bipartisan offensive. Even Neocons who support cutting liberties have to fight in party against constitutionalists, libertarians and tea partiers with visions of the Army grabbing the wrong man.

    Every win we get for states rights here helps dismantle the federal leviathan’s breach of contractul duties.

  • SCAREDTODEATH

    IT IS BECAUSE THE BIG BANKS OWN MOST OF THE MEDIA IN THIS COUNTRY… THE BANKS AND CORP. ARE ACTUALLY THE ONES RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT. THEY APPOINTED THE DICTATOR OBAMA INTO OFFICE AND THE MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT RIGGED IT AND ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT WE ACTUALLY VOTED HIM IN. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE AT ALL. I MYSELF AM REALLY DISAPPOINTED THAT OUR COUNTRY HAS COME TO THIS POINT. OUR LIBERTIES ARE BEING STRIPED FROM US BY BIG MONEY.

  • Anonymous

    Oregon should be on the list soon!- Despite the Libs I HOPE!!! Oregon sheriff: ‘Unconstitutional’ gun control laws won’t be enforced – CNN.com

  • Anonymous


Find me on Google