Tennessee may outlaw the Feds' collection of metadata

[pjohns]

Another move against overreaching federal laws by the Tennessee legislature:


The Tennessee Fourth Amendment Protection Act (Senate Bill 1849) will impede the NSA by “refusing material support, participation, or assistance, to any federal agency which claims the power, or with any federal law, rule, regulation, or order which purports to authorize the collection of electronic data or metadata of any person pursuant to any action not based on a warrant that particularly describes the person, place and thing to be searched and seized.

The legislation (which has not yet been voted upon) "seeks to impede unconstitutional federal laws, regulations and entities on the state level," as the article describing it says.

Here is the link: http://benswann.com/breaking-tennessee-files-historic-legislation-throws-nsa-facility-out-of-state/

[Green Arrow]

That's my state, baby! Nullification and disobedience.

We aim to misbehave!

[donttread]

Another move against overreaching federal laws by the Tennessee legislature:



Alright Tennesee


The legislation (which has not yet been voted upon) "seeks to impede unconstitutional federal laws, regulations and entities on the state level," as the article describing it says.

Here is the link: http://benswann.com/breaking-tennessee-files-historic-legislation-throws-nsa-facility-out-of-state/

[jillian]

That's my state, baby! Nullification and disobedience.

We aim to misbehave!

you mean they don't comprehend the law?

repeat after me… SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

you're welcome.

[keymanjim]

you mean they don't comprehend the law?

repeat after me… SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

you're welcome.
Tenn. is still going to do it. What's the feds going to do? Drone strikes?

FUCK your supremacy clause.

[MrJimmyDale]

you mean they don't comprehend the law? repeat after me… SUPREMACY CLAUSE. you're welcome. I know that the SCOTUS has ruled on nullification....but would this move be on the same plain as pot legalization in some states........What would the feds do about it?
Are states trying to establish an precedent in order to see how far they can take this before the feds step in?

[Peter1469]

I know that the SCOTUS has ruled on nullification....but would this move be on the same plain as pot legalization in some states........What would the feds do about it?
Are states trying to establish an precedent in order to see how far they can take this before the feds step in?

What nullification cases have SCOTUS ruled on?

Lopez, while not technically a nullification case achieved the same thing.

[MrJimmyDale]

What nullification cases have SCOTUS ruled on? Lopez, while not technically a nullification case achieved the same thing. Integration????

[jillian]

What nullification cases have SCOTUS ruled on?

Lopez, while not technically a nullification case achieved the same thing.

well peter… you can start here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topics/tog_supremacy_clause.html

[jillian]

Tenn. is still going to do it. What's the feds going to do? Drone strikes?

FUCK your supremacy clause.

watch your mouth wackadoodle….

what are they going to do? oh i don't know… cut off your welfare money?

oops.

[MrJimmyDale]

watch your mouth wackadoodle…. what are they going to do? oh i don't know… cut off your welfare money? oops. We've got HASLAM money.........We don't need no stinking federal welfare money!!!!!
:)

[keymanjim]

watch your mouth wackadoodle….

what are they going to do? oh i don't know… cut off your welfare money?

oops.

Just so long as those lazy moochers don't come to Jersey. We have enough of them in Trenton.
Fuckity-fuck-fuck.

[MrJimmyDale]

ok looks like the bill proposed isn't nullification.....just a refusal to support, participate, or enforce the feds in collecting the data.....
What good that does I have no idea??????

[jillian]

ok looks like the bill proposed isn't nullification.....just a refusal to support, participate, or enforce the feds in collecting the data.....
What good that does I have no idea??????

none… it's a temper tantrum…

[keymanjim]

none… it's a temper tantrum…
A bunch of guys in Philly had a similar temper tantrum one time.

Now we have the United States of America.

[Green Arrow]

you mean they don't comprehend the law?

repeat after me… SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

you're welcome.

That means absolutely nothing to me. I'm not a Republican, I don't have a love affair with the constitution. The NSA's collection of metadata is morally and ethically evil. I'll support any effort to hinder and defy that.

[Green Arrow]

We've got HASLAM money.........We don't need no stinking federal welfare money!!!!!
:)

Meh. I'm far from a Haslam fan. When he decided to outsource construction on new state buildings to a Chicago contractor, I lost any affection I had for him.

[MrJimmyDale]

Meh. I'm far from a Haslam fan. When he decided to outsource construction on new state buildings to a Chicago contractor, I lost any affection I had for him.
Are you in East TN?
I think more people on this side of the state give him a little more leeway.........

[Kabuki Joe]

That means absolutely nothing to me. I'm not a Republican, I don't have a love affair with the constitution. The NSA's collection of metadata is morally and ethically evil. I'll support any effort to hinder and defy that.


...you don't need to tell us, we already know... :)

[Green Arrow]

Are you in East TN?
I think more people on this side of the state give him a little more leeway.........

Yep, East TN. Nestled right in Hamilton County on the banks of the Tennessee River in beautiful Chattanooga.

Where are you? Please don't say West TN...nothing against you personally, but West TN is why our stats are in the toilet.

[Green Arrow]

...you don't need to tell us, we already know... :)

Was that supposed to be an insult?

[MrJimmyDale]

Yep, East TN. Nestled right in Hamilton County on the banks of the Tennessee River in beautiful Chattanooga.

Where are you? Please don't say West TN...nothing against you personally, but West TN is why our stats are in the toilet.

:)
Right outside of Knoxville...on the way to Sevierville
Seymour, TN

[Green Arrow]

:)
Right outside of Knoxville...on the way to Sevierville
Seymour, TN

Oh, thank the gods. I'm so glad you're not from like Memphis or something :tongue:

One of my spirit sisters lived in Knoxville. Now she goes to MTSU.

[Peter1469]

Integration????

I asked for cases not topics. And Jillian knows that, not sure why she is laughing in the background :wink:. I suspect that the integration cases went against the states, as they should have based off the 14th Amendment.

[Newpublius]

This is not a nullification case the way it's worded. TN's law says the state won't assist:

"refusing material support, participation, or assistance, to any federal agency which claims the power, or with any federal law, rule, regulation, or order which purports to authorize the collection of electronic data or metadata of any person pursuant to any action not based on a warrant that particularly describes the person, place and thing to be searched and seized."

They can't stop the NSA from acting independently. For instance, with Obamacare states can do exchanges or not, but while they don't have to they can't stop the federal exchange. Drug laws, same thi, the state needn't outlaw drugs or enforce federal law.

The reason this is important is because there's a massive amount of things that the Feds and states actually assert concurrent jurisdiction over, ie. think bank robbery.....

but supremacy notwithstanding! the federal government has no authority whatsoever to unilaterally co-opt the organs of the state government to enforce federal law.

[MrJimmyDale]

I asked for cases not topics. And Jillian knows that, not sure why she is laughing in the background :wink:. I suspect that the integration cases went against the states, as they should have based off the 14th Amendment.
The Peters case[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)&action=edit&section=7)]The Supreme Court first dealt with nullification in 1809 in the case of United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809).[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#cite_note-42) The Court rejected the idea of nullification. The Pennsylvania legislature had passed an act purporting to nullify a federal court's decision. The Pennsylvania statute stated that the federal court had acted unconstitutionally because it did not have jurisdiction, and that the federal court's judgment "was null and void." The Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania legislature did not have the power to nullify the federal court's judgment, stating: "If the legislatures of the several States may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals."
In response, the Governor of Pennsylvania called out the state militia to prevent enforcement of the Supreme Court's judgment. However, the U.S. Marshal summoned a posse, carried out the Supreme Court's order, and arrested the leaders of the state militia. The Pennsylvania legislature passed a resolution declaring the action of the Supreme Court unconstitutional, invoking states' rights, and appealing to the other states for support.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#cite_note-43) Eleven states responded by disapproving Pennsylvania's attempted nullification. No state supported Pennsylvania.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#cite_note-44) The Governor of Pennsylvania made a plea to President James Madison to intervene, but Madison affirmed the authority of the Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania legislature backed down and withdrew the militia.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#cite_note-45) Thus, Pennsylvania's attempt to nullify the federal court judgment failed.[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#cite_note-46)

[MrJimmyDale]

Ohio and the Bank of the United States[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)&action=edit&section=10)]In 1819, Ohio imposed a tax on the federally chartered Bank of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States). The Supreme Court already had ruled that such taxes were unconstitutional in McCulloch v. Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland), 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819). Despite the Supreme Court's decision, Ohio seized $100,000 from the Bank to satisfy the tax. Ohio's legislature passed resolutions declaring that it did not accept the result of the McCulloch case and denying that the Supreme Court had the final authority to interpret the Constitution. The Ohio legislature's resolutions, relying on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions), asserted that the states "have an equal right to interpret that Constitution for themselves." The resolutions declared that Ohio had the legal power to tax the Bank.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#cite_note-51)
The controversy eventually reached the Supreme Court in Osborn v. Bank of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborn_v._Bank_of_the_United_States), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824). The Supreme Court held that Ohio's tax on the Bank was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court stated: "[T]he act of the State of Ohio . . . is repugnant to a law of the United States, made in pursuance of the Constitution, and therefore void." The Supreme Court thus rejected Ohio's attempt to nullify federal law.

[MrJimmyDale]

Georgia and the Cherokees[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)&action=edit&section=11)]In the 1820s, Georgia passed an act making Georgia state law applicable on all Cherokee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee) lands and declaring all laws of the Cherokee nation void. This contradicted federal treaties with the Cherokees, effectively nullifying those federal treaties. Georgia's actions were reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Worcester v. Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia), 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, the Georgia legislature passed a resolution asserting that under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government had no jurisdiction over Georgia criminal law and the Supreme Court's review of the case was unconstitutional.[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#cite_note-52)
The Supreme Court rejected Georgia's attempt to nullify the federal treaties with the Cherokees. The Court held that "according to the settled principles of our Constitution," authority over Indian affairs is "committed exclusively to the government of the Union." The Court held that under the federal treaties with the Cherokees, "the laws of Georgia can have no force" on Cherokee land. The Court held that Georgia's laws regulating Cherokee land were "void, as being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States."[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#cite_note-53) The Supreme Court thus asserted final authority to interpret the Constitution and federal treaties, rejecting Georgia's nullification attempt.
Georgia refused to accept the Supreme Court's decision. President Andrew Jackson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson) did not believe Georgia had the right to nullify federal law, but was sympathetic to Georgia's goal of forcing the Cherokees to relocate to the west. He took no immediate action against Georgia. Before the Supreme Court could hear a request for an order enforcing its judgment, the Nullification Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis) arose in South Carolina. Jackson wanted to avoid a confrontation with Georgia over states' rights. A compromise was brokered under which Georgia repealed the law at issue in Worcester. Despite the Court's decision finding Georgia's actions unconstitutional, Georgia continued to enforce other laws regulating the Cherokees. Ultimately the Cherokees were forced to agree to a treaty of relocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_New_Echota), leading to the Trail of Tears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears).[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#cite_note-54)

[MrJimmyDale]

Cited from Wiki.............there are a few more there

[MrJimmyDale]

This is not a nullification case the way it's worded. TN's law says the state won't assist:

"refusing material support, participation, or assistance, to any federal agency which claims the power, or with any federal law, rule, regulation, or order which purports to authorize the collection of electronic data or metadata of any person pursuant to any action not based on a warrant that particularly describes the person, place and thing to be searched and seized."

They can't stop the NSA from acting independently. For instance, with Obamacare states can do exchanges or not, but while they don't have to they can't stop the federal exchange. Drug laws, same thi, the state needn't outlaw drugs or enforce federal law.

The reason this is important is because there's a massive amount of things that the Feds and states actually assert concurrent jurisdiction over, ie. think bank robbery.....

but supremacy notwithstanding! the federal government has no authority whatsoever to unilaterally co-opt the organs of the state government to enforce federal law.

Thanks,
That is what I concluded after doing a little more reading.........

[Newpublius]

I asked for cases not topics. And Jillian knows that, not sure why she is laughing in the background :wink:. I suspect that the integration cases went against the states, as they should have based off the 14th Amendment.

Prigg is the case standing for this proposition, the case on unilateral secession, tx v white, is also on point; nullification being one law, secession simply being a nullification of all federal law....there really is no constitutional argument supporting nullification.

[Peter1469]

This is not a nullification case the way it's worded. TN's law says the state won't assist:

"refusing material support, participation, or assistance, to any federal agency which claims the power, or with any federal law, rule, regulation, or order which purports to authorize the collection of electronic data or metadata of any person pursuant to any action not based on a warrant that particularly describes the person, place and thing to be searched and seized."

They can't stop the NSA from acting independently. For instance, with Obamacare states can do exchanges or not, but while they don't have to they can't stop the federal exchange. Drug laws, same thi, the state needn't outlaw drugs or enforce federal law.

The reason this is important is because there's a massive amount of things that the Feds and states actually assert concurrent jurisdiction over, ie. think bank robbery.....

but supremacy notwithstanding! the federal government has no authority whatsoever to unilaterally co-opt the organs of the state government to enforce federal law.

That is good and gets the state out of a supremacy clause fight. SCOTUS has ruled against the Feds for unfunded mandates.

[Green Arrow]

Prigg is the case standing for this proposition, the case on unilateral secession, tx v white, is also on point; nullification being one law, secession simply being a nullification of all federal law....there really is no constitutional argument supporting nullification.

Jefferson and Madison, who wrote the constitution, disagreed.

[Peter1469]

The Peters case[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)&action=edit&section=7)]

The Supreme Court first dealt with nullification in 1809 in the case of United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809).[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#cite_note-42) T] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#cite_note-46)

That was not a nullification case in the technical sense of the term. Nullification deals with the Federal Government acting outside of the powers ceded to it by the States.

Admiralty law matters are specifically reserved to the federal courts. See, US Const, Art 3, Sec. 2.

Sorry that was really a poor choice as your first nullification case. I have a Certificate in Maritime Law from Tulane Law School and am published in the premier Maritime Law journal on earth (and was its Business Editor). The most prominent admiralty lawyers around the world required that their associates read my article. I have plenty of published soft copies if you want a signed one! :smiley: It is fascinating: "Safe Port/Berth Clauses: Warranty or Due Diligence." I won't even charge you postage.... :kiss:

I don't expect better from the rest of your nullification cases. Sorry.

[Newpublius]

Jefferson and Madison, who wrote the constitution, disagreed.

Well Jefferson had nothing to do with it, nor was he at the Philadelphia Convention or Virginia's convention. Madison obviously does and the name "Madison" carries with it a certain weight being obviously the "Father of the Constitution"

Notwithstanding, Madison's role in interposition with respect to the Alien and Sedition Acts is an aberration. In essence his political life and ambitions overwhelmed his constitutional senses because after all Madison's writings are very clear on point. So, let's go back to the videotape and see what happens over the course of time.

First we have Madison's role at the Philadelphia Convention and then his writings in the Federalist Papers. In the Federalist Papers Madison is quite clear that issues relating to the boundary between federal and state authority are to be determined: "It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government." - Federalist 39 and the express words of the Constituion in Art III are quite clear about cases arising thereunder: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

Its very clear that issues of federalism and cases where one party is some branch of the US Government that we're in Federal Court.

Now of course, Madison does do exactly what you say and he writes the VA Resolution (Jefferson the KY one). The thing of it is is that one simply cannot be reconciled with the other constitutionally.

Ultimately it boils down to the sense of the Alien and Sedition Acts which, despite never being ruled unconstitutional, are still largely considered to be historically unconstitutional. This is Madison acting in a way that he really should know is unconstitutional to stand up for a principle that he believes is correct, inter alia that the Alien and Sedition Acts are unconstitutional.

Its interesting to note that many sister states at the time denounced these actions as obviously unconstitutional, including southern ones I might add.

Nevertheless, the doctrine of interposition becomes entangled with nullification which raises the specter of unilateral secession.

So of course when the Nullification Crisis comes around, well, people pull the VA and KY resolutions out as the precedent, as the authority that nullifying Federal law was supported by such names as Madison and Jefferson.

Madison writes a letter about this and its quite interesting what he has to say about this....

"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of — 98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion." http://www.constitution.org/jm/18321223_trist.htm

Of course his other letters are very much anti-nullification.

This logic shouldn't be particularly compelling to anybody for two reasons. The first is that the constitutionality of the Federal law is in no way dependent on the opinion of a state or multiple states, even if every other state had though the Alien and Sedition Acts were ok, VA and KY could've still asserted standing on behalf of their citizens IN FEDERAL COURT. On top of which, what he would really be referring to would be the power of states to call a constitutional convention. Of course, that they can do, or any other convention for that matter with a more narrow scope, ie. to explore a potential amendment which could've overruled the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Of course Madison's distinction doesn't really ring particularly true to people who read these things and the bottom line is that the VA Resolution is simply an historic aberation, a political act against his political enemy against a law he felt was unconstitutional, attacking it in a way that Madison really should've known wasn't constitutional. He knows this and when the Nullification Crisis comes along, he's vehemently against the doctrine but has to do duck/dodge and deflect his actions

[Kabuki Joe]

Was that supposed to be an insult?


...how is it an insult if you said it?...