County Judge Looking To Make A Name For Himself Rules Against Trump

Florida Judge Rules Another Trump Immigration Order Unconstitutional

1164

4

AP/Mark Avery

by KEN KLUKOWSKI6 Mar 2017Washington, DC1,421

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

A county judge in Florida has ruled unconstitutional on Tenth Amendment grounds another of President Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration, this one concerning federal funding for sanctuary cities.

This week President Trump is signing a new executive order (EO) to replace Executive Order 13769, the one restricting immigration from seven terror-prone nations that had been stayed (i.e., put on hold) by left-leaning judges in first by Washington State and later by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, which the president signed on Jan. 27 of this year.

Often overlooked is an EO the president signed earlier that week. On Jan. 25, Trump issued EO 13768, concerning several other immigration issues, such as prioritizing the removal of criminal aliens.

Regarding “sanctuary cities”—cities and counties that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on deportations—Section 2(c) of the earlier EO requires federal agencies that such cities “that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law.”

James Lacroix is an immigrant from Haiti who is in the United States under a special relief program after his country’s devastating 2010 earthquake. Since arriving, he has repeatedly driven without a license, which became a felony once he was labeled a habitual offender. So now he has been ordered deported after finishing his county jail time.

Lacroix petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to order his release after he finished serving his jail time. The court for Florida’s Miami-Dade County noted that often:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), the federal agency responsible for the deportation of those whose presence in this country is unlawful, will file a detainer or lodge a request with [local jail officials], seeking to have [local authorities] retain an inmate whom the [local authorities] would otherwise release, so that ICE can arrange to take custody of him.

The county jail continued to keep Lacroix under one such immigration hold. In the past Miami-Dade did not honor such requests, but changed course after Trump issued EO 13768, presumably so the county did not jeopardize the funding it receives from Washington, D.C.

Judge Milton Hirsch ordered Lacroix granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered Lacroix released, holding that EO 13768 unconstitutionally coerces Miami-Dade County in violation of the Tenth Amendment. Hirsch construed the Supreme Court’s 2011 case Bond v. United States as empowering Lacroix to raise the claim that EO 13768 exceeds congressional authority under the Constitution’s Spending Clause, and therefore violates the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has previously only allowed states to make a coercion challenge against Congress. While this claim could possibly be raised by a county or city as part of the state, nothing in Supreme Court precedent suggests that individual persons can raise the claim. Moreover, all such Tenth Amendment claims have only been raised against the federal government, never in a case against state or local officials, as is happening here.

The case now goes to Florida’s court of appeals, and from there it can go to the Florida Supreme Court. Since it involves federal issues, it is possible for the U.S. Supreme Court to then weigh in on those claims.

The case is Lacroix v. Junior.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News and a fellow with the American Civil Rights Union. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.id not honor such requests, but changed course after Trump issued EO 13768, presumably so the county did not jeopardize the funding it receives from Washington, D.C.

Judge Milton Hirsch ordered Lacroix granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered Lacroix released, holding that EO 13768 unconstitutionally coerces Miami-Dade County in violation of the Tenth Amendment. Hirsch construed the Supreme Court’s 2011 case Bond v. United States as empowering Lacroix to raise the claim that EO 13768 exceeds congressional authority under the Constitution’s Spending Clause, and therefore violates the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has previously only allowed states to make a coercion challenge against Congress. While this claim could possibly be raised by a county or city as part of the state, nothing in Supreme Court precedent suggests that individual persons can raise the claim. Moreover, all such Tenth Amendment claims have only been raised against the federal government, never in a case against state or local officials, as is happening here.

The case now goes to Florida’s court of appeals, and from there it can go to the Florida Supreme Court. Since it involves federal issues, it is possible for the U.S. Supreme Court to then weigh in on those claims.

The case is Lacroix v. Junior.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News and a fellow with the American Civil Rights Union. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

The Tenth Amendment Starting To Get Used Like The Framers Wanted It To Be Utilized.

STATES GO FULL THROTTLE TO LIMIT FEDS

Hundreds of bills looming in legislatures on Common Core, NSA, marijuana

Published: 17 hours ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/10/runruh.jpg

 BOB UNRUH About 

It’s only days, a few weeks at most, into the 2015 season for state legislatures, and already there are hundreds of bills looming that  challenge the power of Washington on issues ranging from Common Core to marijuana and the National Security Agency, according to a new report.

The Tenth Amendment Center, which tracks legislation at the state level, has listed some 200 state bills “seeking to block or limit federal power.”

“Sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans, these bills range from narrowly focused legislation that would allow terminally ill people access to experimental drugs and medical treatments despite FDA regulations, to bills that would deny resources and assistance from states to the NSA. Other legislation addresses the Second Amendment, the federal prohibition of hemp and marijuana, Common Core, the use of drones for surveillance, the Affordable Care Act, and even federal grant programs that arm local police with battlefield-ready military equipment,” the center said.

Center Communications Director Mike Maharrey told WND the observed “dissatisfaction level” in states is far higher now than the group has seen before.

Last year, he noted, there were half as many bills challenging federal power.

200 and counting

Maharrey said the rejection of Washington’s micromanagement is “broad-based” as well as “bipartisan.”

Many of the bills, he said, are going to pass.

And many, he noted, are a rejection not necessarily of federal laws but of the rules imposed by bureaucrats.

He suggested the marijuana issue as an example. Multiple states allow the legal use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and Washington and Colorado allow it for “recreational use.”

Maharrey noted when the federal government wanted to ban alcohol, it required a constitutional amendment and another amendment to repeal it. Yet the bureaucrats have created a framework now that could be used to punish states that allow marijuana use.

WND reported just weeks ago on the use of executive action and regulations to run Americans’ lives.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, described the problem posed by professional government managers.

“You can’t fire them every two years, as is the case with representatives, or every six years, as is the case with senators. But you can fire your representatives and senators. And so, the ultimate decision-making authority needs to rest with people who are elected,” he said.

The White House has stated it will not wait for legislation to implement so-called “net neutrality” rules because it the Federal Communications Commission can simply write new regulations.

The White House claimed the regulations would ensure Internet service providers treat all Web content fairly, but critics say it would give the federal government virtual control over the content of the Internet.

For instance, they say the government could effectively censor content it finds objectionable by simply slowing the delivery speed.

Additionally, broadband companies say the burdensome regulations would drive up costs and drive down investment and innovation.

Rules

The Obama administration is particularly fond of regulations:

• Nov. 24, 2014: The White House quietly released plans for 3,415 regulations ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday

• Dec. 23, 2014: It crammed in more than 1,200 new regulations just before the New Year

• Dec. 31, 2014: A report found 21,000 regulations so far under Obama with 2,374 set for 2015

The White House also has changed Obamacare with nothing more than Obama’s pen and is trying now to change immigration and amnesty laws through executive memos.

But Lee said that for every one page of legislation signed into law, there are 100 pages of regulations.

And he said those regulations are written by unelected bureaucrats with little, if any, input from the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

He said it’s because Congress has given virtually unhindered rule-making power to bureaucrats with little resistance.

Lee offered an even more graphic illustration, on display in the reception area of his D.C. office: a small stack of 800 pages comprising the bills passed in 2013, dwarfed by a cabinet full of the 80,000 pages of proposed regulations those bills generated.

“When you add up all the laws that give discretion to executive branch agencies, you have, for instance, many hundreds of instances of delegation of regulatory authority in Obamacare. And you likewise had many hundreds instances of delegation of authority in the Dodd-Frank act a few years ago,” Lee said.

“You add those two bills up with all others that have been passed in the last seven or eight decades since Congress has really started taking this approach, and you get a lot our law being made by executive branch bureaucrats.”

Sea change coming?

Maharrey says there will soon be a sea change in how states react to federal power.

If a citizen calls his member of Congress, Maharrey said, he might talk to an intern. But people are recognizing “they can go and make an impact in state legislatures.”

“People have enough power to move these bills along,” he said, calling it a “legal way to undermine the federal bureaucracy.”

The federal government, he said, soon will be following the lead of the states.

“It will change from the bottom up – this attitude is going to work its way up to Washington,” he said.

Regarding marijuana, he said, at some point Congress will decide to no longer prohibit it, based on pressure from the states.

The National Conference of State Legislatures, which couldn’t be reached immediately, tracks a number of bills that challenge federal power.

Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, said the moves by states this year are stunning.

“This is unprecedented. From mass spying, to gun control, property rights, militarized police, the drug war and everything in between, we’ve never seen so much activity to push back on a state level,” he said.

“The great misconception is that this is a right-wing movement that is trying to oppose federal power, and with some issues, like the Second Amendment and the ACA, that’s certainly true,” he said. “But we’re tracking more than 200 bills, and many of the most successful – like marijuana, hemp farming, ‘right to try’ bills, and stopping NSA spying – lean strongly left or are totally bipartisan. Anyone claiming this is a partisan fad is either not paying attention, or lying.”

Feds can’t force states

Boldin said a key component of the movement is the recognized principle that the federal government cannot force states to expend resources or manpower to do its work.

That issue is before the U.S. Supreme Court in an Obamacare case that challenges the federal subsidies to people who obtain insurance from a federal exchange. The creators of Obamacare knew they could not force states to create state exchanges, so they wrote in the law that only those who get insurance through state exchanges would get subsidies, as an incentive.

However, when most states simply refused to do the federal government’s bidding, the bureaucrats opened up the subsidies to all, and the dispute now is before the Supreme Court.

Boldin said state governments are learning they can simply say to the feds, “You want this program, you do it, we aren’t going to help.”

“The beauty of this strategy is in many situations, the feds just don’t have the manpower or resources to get the job done without help from the states. They depend on the states for pretty much everything.”

He continued: “We generally call these acts nullification. Some disagree. But we don’t really care what you call it, though, as long as the end result is the same – stopping the federal government from doing things it shouldn’t be doing.”

The organization has created a page to track legislation on issues such as the NSA, Second Amendment, marijuana, right to try, hemp, police militarization, Obamacare, drones, Common Core and the Defense Authorization’s provision for indefinite detention of Americans.

The site includes links to descriptions of proposals and more.

A trend

WND reported two years ago when 39 states had passed various laws attempting to exempt themselves from implementing Obamacare.

In addition, Arizona and Alabama had passed controversial immigration laws aimed at regulating illegal immigration.

A Washington Times editorial then said supporters of nullification “see it as a necessary and effective tool to protect states and citizens from the every-growing power of the federal government.”

The Times noted the first advocates of the idea were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who drafted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which declared, “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/states-go-full-throttle-to-limit-feds/#jo7PJ6lBWlZYvKjL.99

Plans To Counteract NSA Spying

Dianne Feinstein And The NSA Versus James Madison

October 22, 2013 by Michael Boldin 

UPI FILE

A few weeks ago, Dianne Feinstein claimed that mass spying by the National Security Agency is “lawful, effective and Constitutional.”

Seriously.

I won’t waste my time refuting that nonsense. But I will give you some tools to resist these criminals, without relying on people like Dianne Feinstein to do the right thing — which, by the way, is unlikely to happen.

Ever.

More on that and some action items you can take today in a bit.

But first, a little more from Feinstein.

Up Is Down

Calling billions of 4th Amendment violations “Constitutional” wasn’t enough for Feinstein. She then  introduced a new NSA “reform bill” that does absolutely nothing to stop the NSA.

A few days later, she took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal for some nasty fearmongering. She wants you to believe that either the NSA must be allowed to continue the spying, or you could get hurt in a terrorist attack.

Her message was basically this: We spy, or you die.

George Orwell knew what this was all about when he wrote: “Politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.”

The Truth — From James Madison

The truth, though, is that you don’t have to keep taking it from people like Feinstein. And you don’t have to sit around waiting for her or her friends to stop the NSA.

James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution,” had some advice for what to do; and it doesn’t include relying on the Federal government to stop the Federal government.

In Federalist No. 46, he gave us a four-step plan to successfully resist — in our States — Federal actions we consider either unConstitutional or “unpopular.”

1. Disquietude of the people: Madison expected the people would throw a fit when the feds usurped power — even using the word “repugnance” to describe their displeasure.
2. Refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union: Noncompliance. The Feds rely on cooperation from State and local governments. When enough people refuse to comply, they simply can’t enforce their so-called laws, regulations or mandates.
3. The frowns of the executive magistracy of the State: Here, Madison envisioned governors formally protesting Federal actions. This raises public awareness, and executive leadership will move things to the next step.
4. Legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions: An example of this is the use of State and local legislation — laws and resolutions — either protesting or resisting the Federal acts.

Impact

This is effective stuff.

Madison said that if a number of States followed this path, it would “present obstructions which the Federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed recently. He said if an entire State refused to comply with a Federal law, this would make it “nearly impossible to enforce.”

Putting It In Practice Against NSA

Using this advice, the Tenth Amendment Center has put together a multi-phase plan to resist the NSA.

Phase 1 starts with passage of the 4th Amendment Protection Act in your State.

This is a “legislative device” that requires a “refusal to cooperate” with Federal spying programs in your State.

No matter what they tell you, the NSA absolutely does rely on help in virtually every State.

Here are just a few prominent examples, all of which would be banned with the passage of the 4th Amendment Protection Act in your State.

Providing vital resources: The NSA is resource-hungry. Back in 2006, they maxed out the Baltimore-area power grid. They were concerned that additional power needs could “cripple” their “mission.” The hunt for new data centers was on.

The one in Utah, for example, requires 1.7 million gallons of water every single day to operate. That water is being supplied by a political subdivision of the State of Utah.

Utah should turn the water off.

No water equals no NSA data center.

(See our ads on this here.)

In Texas, the new data center being built in San Antonio gets all its electricity from a State-owned power company.

They should turn it off and make the NSA fend for itself.

There are NSA locations in Colorado, Washington, Hawaii, Tennessee, West Virginia and Georgia, too.

Universities as research centers: There are currently 166 colleges around the countrythat the NSA has partnered with as “Centers of Academic Excellence.”

These are major research centers, advancing NSA spying capabilities. And they act as fertile recruiting grounds for future NSA “analysts.”

Many of these universities are State-run, and future partnership would be banned with passage of the 4th Amendment Protection Act.

It’s bad enough they’re spying on all of us, but recruiting our kids to do it? Shameless.

Big Brother in your local police: The NSA’s culture of suspicion is trickling down to local law enforcement. Information collected without a warrant is shared locally through two channels (that we’re already aware of). They share through the Special Operations Division(SOD) and fusion centers.

On top of it, local law enforcement is encouraged to share Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) upstream with NSA and other Federal agencies. (Learn more about SAR here.)

It’s a very symbiotic relationship.

In short, your local police is being co-opted by Big Brother.

Turn It Off!

Every single State needs to turn it off.

Whether it’s resources like water, electricity or sewage treatment, or research partnerships and information “sharing,” there’s nothing in the Constitution, or any case law, that requires your State to help the Feds violate your rights.

Even the Supreme Court has repeatedly agreed with this “anti-commandeering doctrine.” Relevant court cases are 1842 Prigg, 1992 New York, 1997 Printz and 2012 Sebelius.

Working together, we will send a message to people like Feinstein and her creepy friends at the NSA.

“You don’t get to scare us into giving up the 4th Amendment.”

And how do we do that?

Deliver the message with resistance. They’ll hear us loud and clear.

It’s not going to be easy. And it’s not something that can be done with one bill, one lawsuit or one anything for that matter.

But if we want to live free, we have to take it, as Thomas Jefferson so wisely said: “A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate”

Refuse to comply, and nullify.

Action items:

• Learn more about the 4th Amendment Protection Act here.
• Contact your State Representative and Senator by phone. Strongly, but respectfully, encourage them to introduce the act in your State. Contact info here.
• Contact them again every two weeks until you get an answer. Report back whatever you learn here.
• Contact your local politicians — county and city or town — and ask them to introduce a resolution in support of this action here.
• Join the coalition to stop NSA spying here.
• Sign the petition to turn the water off in Utah here.
• Get updates on the effort nationally and in your State.

So Much For The 10th Amendment

You might not agree with marijuana and that is OK (we don't either), however, when the federal government raids a store that is LEGAL under Washington law, that is wrong. At least it is wrong under the Constitution as we read it.

We find nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the right to regulate drugs or more specifically, marijuana. In fact, the Tenth Amendment clearly empowers the state to control those activities outside those granted the Feds, which we believe is essentially this case.

This bold, in your face, denial of state's rights by the Federal government should be litigated   If not, the Feds will take over state responsibilities for everything and make the state legislatures nothing more than a knitting society. It is time for the states to resurrect their rights under the Constitution.

Conservative Tom

Feds Raid Legal Medical Marijuana Dispensaries In Washington

July 25, 2013 by Sam Rolley 

Despite State legalization and promises from President Barack Obama that raiding medical marijuana facilities was not a priority of the Federal government, medical marijuana dispensaries in Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia and Gig Harbor, Washington were raided by Drug Enforcement Agency agents on Wednesday.

Casey Lee, the owner of one of the facilities, said Federal agents took 16 marijuana plants, edible marijuana products, employees’ cellphones and paperwork from the store during the raid.

“I kept saying, ‘We don’t feel like we’ve done anything wrong. Why are you guys here?’ And they said, ‘Well, you guys are state legal, but you are still not federally legal,’ that’s all they could tell me,” said Lee.

According to DEA officials, the raid of several dispensaries in Washington was part of a two-year investigation.

Via KIRO 7:

Freedom Of Religion--Is It Over?

The freedom of religion takes another hit from a US District Judge in Missouri who ruled that employers must follow federal law in the case of providing birth control to all of their employees. We understand the ruling as it strikes down state law in favor of Federal law, however, doesn't an employer have the right to follow his religion in this regard? Apparently the answer is no.

We would hope that the ruling will be appealed to the US Supreme Court, however, we are not expecting a fair hearing based on Justice Roberts bias in favor of Obama Care.  He will join with the other liberal justices to not even consider taking up the case and should it come to the Court, he will vote against it. Whoever convinced Roberts to sell his soul must be the devil!

This case impacts two amendments. The first as it refers to freedom of religion and the tenth as it relates to states retaining control over all things not delegated to the Federal government. It should be a slam dunk ( a little March Madness lingo there), however, since Roberts has been turned, it is not. We are seeing a slow dismembering of the Constitution.

This ruling is another step toward total dictatorial government control and then onto anarchy. Every day we are closer.

Prepare yourself, it is coming.

Conservative Tom

P.S. If you disagree, please let us know.

MO JUDGE STRIKES DOWN RELIGIOUS BIRTH CONTROL EXEMPTION: ‘A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM AMERICA’S TRADITION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM’

Mar. 19, 2013 9:48am Billy Hallowell

• 58
• 143
• 1
• 0
• 94

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (TheBlaze/AP) — President Barack Obama’s health care law continues to spark debate about conscience and contraception. In the latest development, a federal judge has struck down a Missouri law exempting moral objectors from mandatory birth control coverage because it conflicts with an insurance requirement under the health care law.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig cites a provision in the U.S. Constitution declaring that federal laws take precedence over contradictory state laws. But Fleissig emphasized that she was taking no position on the merits of the Obama administration policy, which requires insurers to cover contraception at no additional cost to women.

Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster did not say on Monday whether he would appeal the ruling, which was dated Thursday but not publicized.

Photo Credit: AP

The anti-abortion group Campaign Life Missouri distributed an email Monday denouncing the ruling as “a radical departure from America’s tradition of religious freedom” and imploring people to contact Koster’s office in support of an appeal. Some backers of Missouri’s law said the court ruling could result in churches and other religious organizations having to accept insurance policies that include contraception coverage.

The Missouri law requires insurers to issue policies without contraception coverage if individuals or employers assert that the use of birth control violates their “moral, ethical or religious beliefs.” The state’s Republican-led Legislature overrode the veto of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon last September to enact the law, which appeared to be the first in the nation to directly rebut the Obama administration’s contraception policy.

Fleissig had issued a temporary restraining order against Missouri’s law last December. The law had been challenged by insurance providers, who feared they could be caught in legal quagmire by the differing federal and state requirements.

In her ruling, Fleissig wrote that the state law “is in conflict with, and pre-empted by, existing federal law” and “could force health insurers to risk fines and penalties by choosing between compliance with state or federal law.”

The judge noted that the federal law includes penalties of $100 per day per employee and an annual tax surcharge of $2,000 per employee for violations of its provisions. The state insurance department already issued orders seeking civil penalties against two insurers for not offering plans excluding contraception coverage as required by the Missouri law.

The ruling “clears up what law they have to write the policies under, and that’s all we were asking,” said Brent Butler, the government affairs director for the Missouri Insurance Coalition, an industry trade group that was one of the plaintiffs.

FILE – In this Feb. 7, 2013 file photo, President Barack Obama speaks at the House Democratic Issues Conference in Lansdowne, Va. For all of his liberal positions on the environment, taxes and health care, Obama is a hawk when it comes to the war on terror. Credit: AP 

Although she struck it down, Fleissig did not issue a permanent injunction against Missouri’s law because she said the state insurance department had agreed not to enforce it and to withdraw its administrative complaints against the health insurers.

Among those supporting the Missouri law was Our Lady’s Inn, a St. Louis area nonprofit that provides homes and counseling for pregnant women. The organization had filed a court document saying it wanted to use the Missouri law to opt out of contraception coverage for its employees’ insurance policies.

“The point of the law was to tell health insurance companies that they’re supposed to honor the wishes – pro or con – of people who have religious or ethical objections to what’s in the policy,” said Timothy Belz, a St. Louis attorney who represented Our Lady’s Inn.

Under the Obama administration policy, churches are exempt from the contraception coverage requirement, but it would extend to insurers who provide policies to religiously affiliated nonprofits such as hospitals, colleges or charities.

Before last year’s legislation, Missouri had been operating under a 2001 law that required birth control prescriptions to be covered under policies that include pharmaceutical benefits at the same co-payment as other medications. That law also had allowed insurers to offer policies without contraception coverage to people or employers who say it violated their moral or religious beliefs. Fleissig’s ruling left in place in the wording requiring contraception to be included in pharmaceutical coverage but struck down the section containing the opt-out provisions.

“Now you’ve got a situation where the Missouri law requires more in the way of contraceptive coverage than Obamacare does,” Belz said.

Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, praised the ruling for ensuring “that all Missouri women -no matter who their boss is – have access to basic preventive health care without a co-pay, including birth control.”