California “Nullify NDAA” Bill Keeps Moving Forward

The Tenth Amendment Center – by Tim Donnelly

The following was written by California State Assemblymember Tim Donnelly, sponsor of Assembly Bill 351, legislation that addresses the “indefinite detention” powers of the 2012 NDAA and other federal “laws.” 

I find it absolutely amazing how far our country has digressed politically since its founding in 1787. Take, for example, the latest Obama Administration scandals: Soylndra, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, the IRS profiling various Conservative political organizations, domestic wiretapping probes on AP journalists, and the PRISM program run by the NSA.  

There comes a time when you have to take a stand against a government that has grown far beyond its morally and constitutionally justifiable authority; a government that is making confident legislative strides to seize more power which it should not have; and a government that is increasing regulations left and right.

Concurring in my prescription, Alexander Hamilton once said: “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its power, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.”

In my capacity as a state assemblyman in California, I have spearheaded legislation that would decrease the size of government and preserve our freedoms. One such example would be Assembly Bill 351, which I introduced in mid-February.

AB 351 would prohibit California authorities from participating in sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. Both of these statutes violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight, and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

If AB 351 is signed into law, it could serve as the impetus behind which other state legislatures choose to follow. It is imperative that we make the federal government realize they cannot casually strip away the rights of Americans without some form of resistance.

I would like thank everyone who has called, emailed, and met with their representatives. Without the support, AB 351 would not have made it as far as it has in the legislative process. We just have one last hurdle, getting it out of committee, off the Senate floor, and to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk! It is set to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 12 at 1:30 P.M. in room 4203.



1. Contact your state senator.  California residents are strongly encouraged to contact their state senators immediately to request support for AB351.  (contact info here)

2.  Share this information widely.  Please pass this along to your friends and family.  Also share it with any and all grassroots groups you’re in contact with around the state.  Please encourage them to email this information to their members and supporters.

3. Join the NDAA activist group on Facebook. Connect with others, plan strategy, build a coalition, and help get AB351 passed!

Further Reading

If passed into law, AB351 would make it state policy to reject “indefinite detention” powers from the federal government.   It reads, in part:

It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California. [emphasis added]

This language of AB351 goes far beyond what has been considered in most other states, which focus solely on indefinite detention powers under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and nothing else.  Donnelly’s legislation broadens the scope by recognizing that indefinite detention should not be complied with no matter what federal law is used to justify it.  Donnelly confirmed this broad scope, “AB351 will prevent California from implementing indefinite detention for any reason.”

This would make a HUGE dent in any federal effort to detain without due process in California.  As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). Quite simply, the federal government is going to have an extremely difficult time – at best – carrying out indefinite detention in California without the assistance of California.

3 thoughts on “California “Nullify NDAA” Bill Keeps Moving Forward

  1. I don’t believe this is a sincere effort to nullify the NDAA’s indefinite detention provisions, but instead it’s a political ploy to help Tim Donelly’s next campaign.

    ““AB351 will prevent California from implementing indefinite detention for any reason.”

    California was never implementing it in the first place. It’s a federal law dealing with federal detention, and there isn’t much legislative action that California can take to stop it.

    “It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California.”

    So in order for this to have any effect whatsoever, the feds would have to formerly announce that they’ll be indefinitely detaining someone before their arrest. If they arrest someone in California for tax evasion and decide to indefinitely detain him later, this law would have no effect on the process.

    But naturally, they want you to join a Facebook club so they can identify everyone who’s opposed to it. Don’t waste your time contacting your senator because he doesn’t care, and don’t bother telling your friends because it doesn’t matter. You have much more important things to discuss with your friends right now.

  2. Jolly Roger is correct. AB 351 does NOTHING to protect the rights of persons in California from “indefinite detention” by the feds. Nothing!

    All AB351 does is tell state and local officials to “stand down,” and don’t help the feds enforce a law they weren’t required to help enforce in the first place.

    The term “nullification” has such a fuzzy meaning. Legally and constitutionally, it simply doesn’t apply in this instance. Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA were “null” from inception as per the U.S. Constitution’s Article VI, Clause 2.

    What is necessary, and what Rep. Donnelly and all state legislators are duty-bound by oath to do is to “interpose” between persons in California and rogue federal government operatives attempting to apply the “laws of war” in California.

    Feel-good legislation that provides no protections of our God-given Constitutional Rights gives legislators a pass for not upholding their oath, and give citizens and other persons in California a false sense of security that their state government has taken action to protect their rights.

    This letter to California state legislators explains and cites the authority and necessity of their “interposing” on behalf of the people.

  3. Jolly Roger seems to think that Assembly Bill 351 is a political scam including by Assemblyman Tim Donnelly. I do not know Mr. Donnelly’s motives but AB 351 does not fulfill Mr. Donnelly’s oath to the Constitution under Article VI clause 3 to “support” the federal Constitution.

    Article VI clause 3 establishes a personal, active and affirmative duty on this part to actively resist any bill, statute or action which is not in compliance with the federal Constitution regardless of who is trying to carry such out including the federal government. VI.3. also establishes a duty on his part to have a working knowledge of the federal Constitution i.e. he has a duty to know a violation has occurred.

    Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA clearly are in violation of over half of the Bill of Rights and parts of the Constitution proper including Article III Sec. 3. They apply the “law of war” to the American people and thereby are an act of war against the sovereign American people by factions in the federal government. As such these provision are ipso facto (by the fact itself) null and void under the provisions of Article VI Clause 2.
    Nor does AB 351 fulfill the state’s sovereign duty to protect its citizens rights by interposing itself between its citizens and any usurper including the federal government.

    What AB 351 says in essence is “We will not help you, federal government, to infringe on the rights out our citizens but we will not stop you …come and get them if you want.” So the state has declared, under AB351, its citizens to “be out of its prospection” . This is one of the crimes alleged against the king in the Declaration of Independence. This under our system of government is an act of sedition if not treason to the sovereign people.

    Richard D. Fry
    General Counsel
    Patriot Coalition

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.