California bill to nullify NDAA unanimously passes committee

Daily Caller

California lawmakers are pushing a bill that would exempt the state from federal laws authorizing indefinite detention of citizens.

The California Public Safety Committee voted unanimously Tuesday in favor of the California Liberty Preservation Act, which was introduced by Republican Assemblyman Tim Donnelly.  

The bill passed the Democrat-controlled committee 6-0 with the support of a wide-ranging coalition that included the American Civil Liberties Union, Tenth Amendment Center, San Francisco 99% Coalition, San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Libertarian Party of California.

The legislation is designed to free California from having to comply with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012, which does nothing to prevent the potential seizure and indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. The California bill declares such federal power unconstitutional, and mandates the state and its localities refuse adhering to or assisting with federal implementation.

“The NDAA gives the executive branch—under not only President Obama, but also every future president — unprecedented power to detain US citizens without due process,” Assemblyman Donnelly, the bill’s author, wrote in a press release. “This runs counter to the very principles that make America great, and violates our nation’s commitment to the rule of law.”

The bill cites the Tenth Amendment, and affirms the enumerated nature of the federal government’s powers.

“The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorizes the United States federal government to exercise only those powers specifically delegated to it in the United States Constitution,” he wrote.

The bill goes on to attack the concept of indefinite detention without a trial as contrary to the letter and spirit of America’s laws and principles.

“Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) codifies indefinite military detention without charge or trial of civilians captured far from any battlefield, violating the United States Constitution and corroding our nation’s commitment to the rule of law.”

Donnelly’s proposal moves to confront such unconstitutional overreach from the federal government by abstaining California from observing any and all federal laws that would result in depriving Californians of due process.

The bill “says the federal government only has the powers enumerated in the Constitution … and does not have the authority here to detain people here without due process,” said Donnelly during the committee hearing. “It is important that we in California say ‘no’ to human rights abuses that are endangered by the NDAA … instead of quietly complying with unjust and unconstitutional laws.”

But Donnelly’s efforts are likely little more than a show.

Under Supreme Court precedent, a state does not have the power to block the enforcement of federal law inside its borders, Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma, told The Associated Press.

Follow Spencer on Twitter

Read more:

4 thoughts on “California bill to nullify NDAA unanimously passes committee

  1. Mr. Thai states … “Under Supreme Court precedent, a state does not have the power to block the enforcement of federal law inside its borders, Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma, told The Associated Press.”

    Um … correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Mr. Thai is wrong. Why are so many states making their own laws and standing up to the Federal government keeping them in their place and outside of state’s borders? Otherwise, wouldn’t that be a dictatorship??

    . . .

    1. His statement is actually accurate if you take into account the federal govt illegally passed a second constitution in 1789/was not ratified by any of the states. but the country was incorporated at that time thereby technically nullifying any power the stated have or had. i am one who does not believe this newer constitution has merit or power, but the federalies sure think it does. the corp. constitution of 1789 is when we lost this country. its just been a slow slide down into the abyss. multi-generational are their plannings.

  2. Be interesting to see if this actually does pass.

    Not that it really matters, all things considered.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.