Skip to comments.Emmett, Idaho, Nullifies Indefinite Detention of NDAA
Posted on 01/08/2014 8:43:57 PM PST by robowombat
Emmett, Idaho, Nullifies Indefinite Detention of NDAA Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
Another American town has decided its citizens will not be denied due process by the president of the United States.
By a vote of 5-1, the city council of Emmett, Idaho, passed a resolution last month prohibiting the enforcement of Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
As readers are likely aware, those particular provisions of the NDAA subject citizens of the United States to indefinite detention in a federal prison upon suspicion by the president and unnamed high-level security advisors of aiding enemies of the state.
The Emmet measure the Restoring Constitutional Governance Resolution not only explicitly bans the offensive parts of the NDAA, but effectively nullifies any applicable laws of war (the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, for one) that designate Emmett and every other city and town in America a battlefield in the War on Terror.
Freeing themselves from such tyranny was not enough for the Emmett City Council, however, as the resolution calls upon the Idaho state legislature to take similar steps to stop the enforcement of the NDAA at the borders of the Gem State. Additionally, the measure encourages the states federal representatives to sponsor congressional bills repealing the relevant acts.
The hour is urgent. It is vital to remember the history of the enactment of these unconscionable and unconstitutional provisions and to remind lawmakers of their obligation to prevent them from being imposed upon the people they represent.
On December 31, 2011, with the president's signing of that law, the writ of habeas corpus a civil right so fundamental to Anglo-American common law history that it predates the Magna Carta is voidable upon the command of the president of the United States. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is also revocable at his will.
One of the most noxious elements of the NDAA is that it places the American military at the disposal of the president for the apprehension, arrest, and detention of those suspected of posing a danger to the homeland (whether inside or outside the borders of the United States and whether the suspect be a citizen or foreigner). The endowment of such a power to the president by the Congress is nothing less than a de facto legislative repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the law forbidding the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.
Furthermore, a key component of the NDAA mandates a frightening grant of immense and unconstitutional power to the executive branch. Under the provisions of Section 1021 one of the sections specifically nullified in the Emmett resolution the president is afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States.
Further, in order to execute the provisions of Section 1021, Section 1022 (among others) unlawfully gives the president the absolute and unquestionable authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States to apprehend and to indefinitely detain those suspected of threatening the security of the homeland. In the language of this legislation, these people are called covered persons.
The universe of potential covered persons includes every citizen of the United States of America. Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a belligerent and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.
Fortunately, as the action by the Emmett, Idaho, City Council demonstrates, there are state and local leaders willing to charge into the gap and protect the rights of citizens from being illegally classified by the Obama administration as enemies and imprisoned potentially forever without so much as a hearing.
Emmett is not alone is forbidding federal agents from enforcing the NDAAs wholesale violations of fundamental civil liberties. As The New American has reported, local leaders in El Paso County, Colorado; Las Vegas, Nevada; Albany, New York; Oxford, Massachusetts; and Webster, Massachusetts, have lived up to their oaths of office, voting to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
People Against the NDAA (PANDA) perhaps the countrys most active organization in the fight against the despotism of the NDAA reported on the laudable action of the Emmett City Council. Included in its article, PANDA reprinted key parts of the citys resolution:
Emmetts resolution states:
it is unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful for any person to:
a. arrest or capture any person in Emmett, or citizen of Emmett, within the United States, with the intent of detention under the law of war, or
b. actually subject a person in Emmett, to disposition under the law of war, or
c. subject any person to targeted killing in Emmett, or citizen of Emmett, within the United States;
Jason Casella, PANDA Idahos Take Back Campaign Coordinator, said:
I want to thank the great people of Emmett for taking the time to study and act on the issue. Once you stop and do your own research, you find how egregious this truly is and how this is not about left or right; this is about freedom vs. tyranny. We can restore our republic and our human rights city by city and county by county.
The most effective weapon in the war against federal tyranny is nullification. Nullification occurs when a state, county, city, or other local entity holds as null, void, and of no legal effect any act of the federal government that exceeds the boundaries of its constitutional powers.
Nullification recognizes that states possess the right to invalidate any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
States (and their legal subdivisions) retain the right to act as arbiters of the constitutionality of federal acts because they formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.
Despite criticism by those who advocate for a more powerful federal government, nullification would not lead to anarchy, as it is only unconstitutional federal acts that will be subject to state invalidation.
An analogy from everyday life makes the practice of nullification easier to understand.
Imagine that a person entered into a contract with a homebuilder to construct a new home. The blueprints contained the agreed-upon specifications of the house and the contract set out the duties and obligations of the homeowner and the homebuilder.
As long as both parties abide by the terms of the contract, the relationship will continue as set forth in the contract. What would happen, however, if the homebuilder decides to exceed the scope of the contract and begins digging a pool? On a visit to the construction site, the homeowner notices the pool and confronts the contractor. When the homebuilder hands his client the bill for the cost of the pool, would the homeowner be required to pay for it?
However, when it comes to the bills sent to the states by the federal government demanding payment for unconstitutional acts, for some reason the states and cities have forgotten the terms of the contract and unnecessarily pay the bills, and now they are going broke.
There is a better way. Nullification is the rightful remedy and can not only restore the rule of law in this Republic, but can restore the independence of states and cities, freeing them from the financial chains that have them bound to the federal behemoth.
And, as Congress continues to surrender to the president all legislative, executive, and judicial power, the need for nullification is urgent, and liberty-minded citizens are encouraged to see state legislators boldly asserting their right to restrain the federal government through application of that very powerful and very constitutional principle.
By passing similar anti-NDAA resolutions, cities and counties can boldly join Emmett, Las Vegas, and the other towns and counties in steadfastly resisting President Obamas potential use of the NDAA to abolish centuries-old due process and habeas corpus protections, and help restore the states rightful place as bulwarks of liberty.
Photo of Emmett, Idaho
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, the Second Amendment, and the surveillance state. He is the co-founder of Liberty Rising, an educational endeavor aimed at promoting and preserving the Constitution. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Wish we had a “LIKE” button.
Like some city counsel resolution would stop them. I applaud their effort, but this NDAA thing is dangerous.
Good read. I wonder if this will gather some traction in other areas? We will have to stay tuned I guess.
Save, I want Texas to do this!
Emmmet Idaho nearby me. Been there many times. Wish Boise would do this...
Yep. We’re not going to go along. We’re not going to allow our citizens to have their rights trampled just because some group of people in Washington DC (or anywhere else) says so.
They want to get a warrant based upon probable cause, signed by a constitutionally recognized judge, and then go through the grand jury system...fine.
America at the Crossroads of History
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that
a law repugnant to the Constitution is void,
and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them,or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
There is no doubt that DC is a toilet of corruption and needs to be flushed (pun intended)
With the history of not obeying the laws of our country (the Constitution) will stop odumbo and his ilk? Think again. He will do anything he wants and who in that little Utah town will be able to stop them before it is a place in the history books. It will be wiped off the face of the earth and odumbo’s ilk will move on to the next place of resistance.
I seem to remember from reading here and there there is a distinction made between “The United States” (being interpreted as the D.C.) and the “several” states - being everything else. I could well be wrong.
Notwithstanding the military budget makes no reference to indefinite detention of American citizens, but does allow for indefinite detention of foreigners captured abroad (such as we have done detaining POWs in all other wars. . .until the war is over).
Asked Cruz’s office to cite the specific part of the military budget where indefinite detention of Americans is allowed and they have not identified specific reference in the legislation.
Apparently, his staff is unable to cite the actual section of the law they are against. I’ve asked them to ask the Senator. They did promise to get back to me.
So, as it stands, no one has been able to quote/cite a specific provision of the law that allows what a lot of people are saying it allows.
Interesting. . .ACLU and other lefties snookering people just so the American-hating left can derail indefinite detention of foreign POWs. Why? Whatever for.
If you can cite the specific part of the actual legislation (not news reports or commentary), allowing indefinite detention of Americans, please do. I’ve looked and read and can’t find it.
What is the indefinite detention mentions in sections 1021 and 1022 all about? I wonder why Cruz, (and the many others), would even bother with this entire deal if it was bogus. I hope you hear back from him. Thanks for taking the time to contact him.
Yes, been reading those sections and have a detailed description/answer. . .if you have time (with quotes from the legislation).
My review of what the actual legislation says is here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3108554/posts?page=63#63
In the link you provided and I read I saw this: (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS-—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. ‘Requirement’. Interesting wording. So as far as I see it here it does not mean an administration will not use indefinite detention or have it available.....but just that they are just not ‘required’ to do so. Any thoughts on that wording? I guess my largest questions of anyone on this NDAA is that if it was not authorizing indefinite detention why are so many saying it does? By so many I do not mean internet folks, but judges, mayors, govs, Wa. DC politicians etc. Are they ALL wrong on it? Why would they be wasting time if there was no ‘there there’?
Yes, I noticed that as well, but there is legislation that clarifies (indirectly) that point in the FY12 NDAA.
In the FY13 NDAA ((http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr4310enr.pdf):
SEC. 1029. RIGHTS UNAFFECTED.
Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 10740; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 11281) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws.
In plain language it is clear US citizens cant be scooped up and held indefinitely.
It is refreshing to exchange thoughtful views and I thank you for that.
Oh, I also wonder why many that should know better, or should know they should provide proof of their accusation, do not push back and instead jump on the bandwagon. Can’t figure it out. Even Cruz’s office appears to have done so.
Shallow political reasons, perhaps? A politically motivated position driven by “common knowledge” and not fact, unwilling to take the time to fight emotion with facts, especially when we have (and rightfully so), a populace wary of the government (NSA, IRS, this sort of abuse).
Perhaps then politicos are taking a political stand when faced with unified opposition of American-haters on the left and spring-loaded I-don’t-trust-the-government on the right.
A perfect storm where the scandals of the Zero’s administration and the assault on Americans rights has taken place, so now when an allegation is made, no one offers facts to prove the allegations false.
No too far fetched a thought, after all, as we have seen here on FR the knee-jerk reactions are to favor being misled rather than reading and thinking for themselves.
All to often in history we have seen people being led by emotion rather than fact.
IMHO, of course.
My posting was to make the case that they are subject to the Constitution, if they follow it or not, is not my concern, what I am stating in a oblique manner is when America wakes up, (preferring it is sooner rather than later)and just like Al Capone, it is the little things that will bite you in the end. Not saying that the Constitution is a little thing, but the American style Nuremberg Trials which will be repeated there in the states will have to be strictly followed.
At some point the majority of America will wake up and smell the tyranny.
What are your views on Judge Andrew Napolitano? He has consistently for 2 solid years now stated his views are that the NDAA gives a/the president exactly what folks are afraid of. That the Feds. can pick up people off of the street with no judicial process required. The Judge has quite a lot of experience. Is he wrong also? If so, where and why?
I know. That is what has me baffled, so many say so much but no one is actually quoting where the law allows such a thing.
Or maybe we are mishearing what he is saying.
Can’t recall but maybe he is saying indefinite detention of Americans captured abroad on the battlefield? I don’t know if that is what he is referring to. In that case, he might have a poiont of debate, but like wars past (US citizens returning to Germany to fight in WWII), they were POWs for the duration.
But like I said, all these people saying something but not actually citing the actual section of the law.
Why is that?
Do you have a theory?
Thanks for reminding me what the Judge said. I just sent an email to the judge asking for the relevant part of the law. We shall see if he responds.
Thus far I’ve emailed Cruz’s office and called and asked his the staff to ask Cruz for the actual law, and sent an email to the Speaker (like that will be answered), and I also sent an email to the Texas AG asking his thoughts about references to American citizens being grabbed off the street, authorized by the NDAA. No one has yet replied.
The Judge is/has always been someone who’s opinion on all things legal I respect. He has quite a few opinions out there in print and video on the NDAA’s indefinite detention. I will be very curious to hear if he responds to your email questions. Thanks for taking the time to try to get this entire thing clarified.
I’m with you on the Judge.
I’ll let you know if I hear back from him or anyone.